Third Amendment- The Quartering of Troops

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

In my opinion, the third amendment was very important to the Framers at the time the Constitution was written. Before coming to America many of them were faced with this issue in England. They were forced to provide housing, food, etc. for soldiers and were never repaid for their services. With new found freedom in America and a chance to set up it's government, they were doing everything in their power to prevent the persecutions they felt in England from following them to America. It is obvious to most that this amendment is some what irrelevant today, or is it? Maybe the reason why the third amendment is overlooked is because the Framers were so concise in their wording and very adamant in their beliefs that this notion is completely accepted and therefore not challenged.





My Opinion: I chose this video because of the man's statement about kicking armed force recruiters off college campuses. I have never thought about this as applying to the third amendment. I always related it to someone's private residence. I do not agree with his statement that the third amendment would give college campuses this right. The recruiters are not being quartered on the campus but using it as a place of business just as many other organizations do.



"Does the Third Amendment of the Constitution of the United States mean anything anymore?"


A Google News search for "third amendment" returns seven articles, referring to amendments in Pakistan, India, the UAE, and Coatesville, Pennsylvania. None refer to the United States constitution.

In fact it would seem that the Third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is one of the least controversial legal issues ever. The founding fathers objected, in the Declaration of Independence, to the billeting of British soldiers in civilian homes, and so were determined not to repeat the offense.

It may well be the only law that rabid opponents have accused neither William Jefferson Clinton nor George Walker Bush -- nor even Richard Milhouse Nixon or even Howard Brush Dean -- of violating as President, as Governor, as Boy Scout, or ever at all.

So if the presidential campaign of 2004 comes down to "Brush" vs. "Shrub" (which are anagrams!), at least both candidates will apparently be able to agree on not housing soldiers in the homes of unwilling Americans.

It is apparently not a violation to house soldiers in Saddam's old palaces, but it would be a hoot if someone made something out of objecting to it.


My Opinion: I chose this article because it was one of the only ones that came up when I researched the third amendment. The article and the search itself are a testament to how dated the third amendment is to today's politics. It makes complete sense why it is in the constitution but its relevance is far removed.