Third Amendment - Concept of civilian-controlled military is American

Morning Call ^ | 06/01/2003 | Frank Whelan

[P.O.E.]

"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."

There are plenty of opinions on what the Bill of Rights says. But it would take some effort to find many media pundits opining about the neglected Third Amendment. Not these days. With the most technologically sophisticated military in human history, it is hardly likely that U.S. leadership might resort to putting soldiers in American homes anytime soon. The notion seems as antiquated as flintlock muskets.

Yet, the Third Amendment underscores a most important constitutional issue — civilian control of the military. In his debate in 1788 with Patrick Henry over the quartering issue, Bill of Rights author James Madison noted that the argument was not over the actual quartering of troops. The issue was, he said, that quartering was ''done without the consent of the local authority, without the consent of America.''

In the 10 years leading up to the American Revolution, the quartering of troops was a major flash point in the confrontation between the colonies and the Mother Country. One of the charges brought against King George III in the Declaration of Independence was for ''Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.'' When state constitutions were being drawn up in the 1780s, those of New York, North Carolina and Virginia contained bills of rights that included an amendment with language identical to that in the Third Amendment.

The Third Amendment is rooted in a traditional English distrust of standing armies and reverence for the sanctity of an Englishman's home. In the words of America's defender in Parliament, William Pitt, even the poor man in a leaking cottage had a right to decide who should enter his home. ''The storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement,'' Pitt told Parliament.

By the 18th Century, the quartering of troops in inns was no longer an issue in Britain. Innkeepers and town officials understood what was required of them and didn't argue, because they were paid for it. But in America, there were few inns. Most people hadn't seen a professional soldier in a generation. In their world, a trained militia of citizen soldiers was enough to handle most problems.

[P.O.E.]

Also from the print edition:

"Today's installment of The Morning Call's Bill of Rights Forum focuses on the Third Amendment. It is one of the less-discussed amendments because it deals with an apparently archaic issue - the quartering of troops in private residences. As the accompanying essay by Frank Whelan shows, the issue behind the Third Amendment - control of the military in the United States - has been, and continues to be, relevant and important."

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It seems like the Third Amendment would also prevent the military from confiscating property and merhcandise for its use.

[P.O.E.]

I was pleasantly surprised to notice this morning that our local paper is publishing a series of articles on the Bill of Rights. The next installment is due on July 6, 2003.

The series started on May 1, 2003, with these columns:

The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights shows founders' genius

Independent courts protect the rights of all

[Fiddlstix]

Ping

[P.O.E.]

In that regard, it would also seem relevant in terms of limiting taxation. Giving quarter was seen as another "taxation without representation" - the colonists were willing to pay so much, and no more.

Much as today, we seem to be taxed at every turn and in what I'll politely refer to as "indirect methods".

[MosesKnows]

it is hardly likely that U.S. leadership might resort to putting soldiers in American homes

I read a posting on Free Republic referencing an article that asked the question,
Which among Bill of Rights remains intact?

Only one amendment has survived intact. One by one all of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been "interpreted" away. Can you guess the single amendment which has survived, so far?

My concerns are for the nine that we have lost.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

In that regard, it would also seem relevant in terms of limiting taxation...

You connected the dots for me.

Thanks.

I knew I was heading somewhere with my thought, but I wasn't quite sure where.

[Maelstrom]

The Third Amendment should also prohibit the quartering of extensions of those soldiers' senses.

Wiretaps, bugs, audio lasers and the like are all extensions of the senses...thus thwarting the spirit of the intent while seemingly not violating the letter of the law.

[Wilhelm Tell]

The Third Amendment is still important today, although some liberals scoff at it even more than they scoff at the Second Amendment. Either civilians will control the military or the military will control the civilian populace -- either directly or by "following the orders" of some dictator. In either case, the military is reduced to either being the puppet of any dictator or it is a power-broker that chooses the dictator. Countries that don't have an "archaic" protection similar to the Third Amendment seem to have such "modern" features like military death squads. The Founders were very wise in being cautious about standing armies.

[SAMWolf]

Thanks for the ping Fiddlestix. I agree with must of the other posters so far. It's the only "right" that we haven't had watered down or taken away.