Wednesday, September 30, 2009
3rd Amendment
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.
3rd Amendment-Discussion
This Amendment is pretty straight forward and unfortunately I could not find a video or article to more richly explain it so all you get is me this time. This amendments sole purpose is to establish the right of the civilian over the soldier. So that a civilian does not get forced into a position that is possibly harmful to them or their property.
3rd Amendment - Privacy
The Third Amendment and the War on Terror
posted by Gerard Magliocca
I’ve long wondered — mostly in jest — whether the Third Amendment says anything meaningful for modern constitutional analysis. Griswold v. Connecticut cited the Amendment as support for the “right to privacy,” but that’s the only time it’s really been used. But here’s an thought experiment (partly fun, partly serious).
Here’s the text of the amendment:
“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.”
Most people overlook the fact that this means Congress has the power to quarter soldiers in your house during a war (it just needs to pass a law to do so). If the Third Amendment is construed as expressing a privacy principle, then this suggests that Congress has greater latitude to invade our privacy during a war. Of course, this begs the question of what “war” means. Does that mean there must be a declaration of war? Or is it just “not peace,” given that peace is stated as a condition in the preceding clause? If Congress decides that we need to put soldiers in private homes to fight the war on terrorism, would that be constitutional?
Moreover, one could say that the Third Amendment offers some useful guidance about issues such as domestic surveillance without a warrant. In one sense, it suggests a textual basis for thinking that our reasonable expectation of privacy is diminished in wartime (at least with respect to federal action). On the other hand, it also suggests that Congress must concur in any invasion of our privacy — the President cannot unilaterally quarter soldiers in your house under the Commander-in-Chief Clause. (References to “law” in the Constitution, I think, always refer to statutes.)
You may think that this is just a professorial ego trip, but John Bingham (the primary drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment) actually made a Third Amendment analogy to defend the legality of the use of military commissions to try Lincoln’s assassins. (I just read this the other day.) Basically, he said that the Third Amendment supported the proposition that the federal government could take actions in war that it could not take in normal times and pointed to the suspension of habeas corpus as evidence that Congress had authorized the use of military commissions instead of civilian courts for trials of those connecProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
d with the rebellion.
UPDATE: I see that there is a recent note by Josh Dugan, “When is a Search not a Search? When It’s a Quarter: The Third Amendment, Originalism, and NSA Wiretapping,” 97 Geo. L. Rev. 555 (2009) that analyzes this issue in a similar way. I’m printing it out now.
posted by Gerard Magliocca
I’ve long wondered — mostly in jest — whether the Third Amendment says anything meaningful for modern constitutional analysis. Griswold v. Connecticut cited the Amendment as support for the “right to privacy,” but that’s the only time it’s really been used. But here’s an thought experiment (partly fun, partly serious).
Here’s the text of the amendment:
“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.”
Most people overlook the fact that this means Congress has the power to quarter soldiers in your house during a war (it just needs to pass a law to do so). If the Third Amendment is construed as expressing a privacy principle, then this suggests that Congress has greater latitude to invade our privacy during a war. Of course, this begs the question of what “war” means. Does that mean there must be a declaration of war? Or is it just “not peace,” given that peace is stated as a condition in the preceding clause? If Congress decides that we need to put soldiers in private homes to fight the war on terrorism, would that be constitutional?
Moreover, one could say that the Third Amendment offers some useful guidance about issues such as domestic surveillance without a warrant. In one sense, it suggests a textual basis for thinking that our reasonable expectation of privacy is diminished in wartime (at least with respect to federal action). On the other hand, it also suggests that Congress must concur in any invasion of our privacy — the President cannot unilaterally quarter soldiers in your house under the Commander-in-Chief Clause. (References to “law” in the Constitution, I think, always refer to statutes.)
You may think that this is just a professorial ego trip, but John Bingham (the primary drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment) actually made a Third Amendment analogy to defend the legality of the use of military commissions to try Lincoln’s assassins. (I just read this the other day.) Basically, he said that the Third Amendment supported the proposition that the federal government could take actions in war that it could not take in normal times and pointed to the suspension of habeas corpus as evidence that Congress had authorized the use of military commissions instead of civilian courts for trials of those connecProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
d with the rebellion.
UPDATE: I see that there is a recent note by Josh Dugan, “When is a Search not a Search? When It’s a Quarter: The Third Amendment, Originalism, and NSA Wiretapping,” 97 Geo. L. Rev. 555 (2009) that analyzes this issue in a similar way. I’m printing it out now.
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
2nd Amendment-Discussion
Safety or Freedom, throughout years of our relatively young nation this has been the big choice especially in times of war. Do you want to be safe from the Japs or would you rather Japanese immigrants walk free? Do you want to be safe from the Dirty Reds or do you want the ability to speak openly about your beliefs? In almost every scenario they use some intimidating figure to scare us into wanting to give up a little more. In WWII they imprisoned Japanese Americans several generations removed from setting foot on Japan into prison camps. In the cold war days when the soviet union was a threat to the U.S a special agency hunted down suspected "Red sympathizers" and black-balled them and/or chased them from the country. I bring this up because these are obvious now as things that shouldn't have happened. Rights we shouldn't have given up for even a moment. Losing the ability to freely purchase firearms could very well be the next thing the people regret. There going through all the regular steps: Number 1 paint a intimidating villain e.g robbers, school-shootings, gang violence. Number 2 give a solution that takes away freedoms and make it an either or choice so that you seem heartless to choose the freedom e.g Ban guns because those evil devices are what are causing all this pain. In a perfect world you take away guns everyone except the government has them so crime is practically gone. However we do not yet live in a perfect world and even if crime was gone we would have an even worse villain, an Unchallenged Governing Force. There is a syndrome called ???????? that says that when 2 or more people from identical origins arrive in a position in which one group is in seemingly absolute power (e.g Prison guards) and a seemingly powerless group (e.g Prisoners) There becomes a definite urge for the first group to abuse that power in the expense of the other. Couple that with the feeling of anonymity and the urge becomes almost manic. To finish I'm not saying that I think the government will turn and we will need guns to defend ourselves. I'm saying we need guns to remind the government that we are not powerless so that we don't have to defend ourselves like our forefathers. Even though it seems heartless I will tolerate the school shootings, gang violence, and all the robberies at gunpoint for that reason because if we ban the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms it could very well be the first nail in the coffin of our beloved country.
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment-Discussion
Arguably the most important amendment of them all. Not to say that the others aren't important just that this small paragraph states the most fundamental of American rights. It lets us, without fear of government (most the time), to say, write, believe, and tell those beliefs to others. So without this tiny addition to the Constitution we would not have near as many rights and freedoms as we do today. So I guess it might have been worth the ink and space.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
