Talk:Third Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Origin

The suggested origin of the third amendment is not wrong but misses the main point. A primary cause of the American Revolution was that, for perhaps a hundred years or so, Americans had thought they had the same rights as Englishmen. But events during and after the French and Indian War convinced them this was not the case.

The rights of Englishmen included:

- Freedom of speech (From the English Bill of Rights, 1689) - The right to bear arms (E Bill of Rights) - The right not to have troops billeted in their homes (from the Petition of Right, 1628) - The right to a trial by jury (E Bill of Rights) - Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (perhaps from Entick v. Carrington*, 1765) - Protection from excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment (E Bill of Rights)

The larger part of the US Bill of Rights was to make sure that, in the new America, people would have the rights they thought they had had all along.

(*Curiously, Entick v. Carrington was cited by the US Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 - the decision that arguably established a right to privacy in the United States)

KJB

Questions on Controversy

Is this the least debated amendment?

It has all of one case under it, so I suspect so. Probably the most debated part of it is whether or not it serves any purpose anymore... 68.39.174.238 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This amendment serves a purpose. If army soldiers were to come to your house tomorrow night en route to a military base and demand to stay a few days, this amendment might come in handy. And if there was a manner prescribed by law by which soldiers could stay in your house if the nation were at war, just consider: Would that allow soldiers to be quartered in your house now, while we are engaged in a "war on terrorism," or would a Congressional declaration of war be necessary? The amendment could become relevant and the issues could become thorny . . . takethemud 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)takethemud

It's better to have the amendment and not need it than the other way around. 192.91.171.42 23:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

STUDENT

I am currently doing a report on this subject and find this particular site to be not very helpful. The history of the amendment and its occurrences in present day are not easily found for a student of my stature, that is continuing her quest for knowledge finds this webpage difficult to comprehend. I am not sure that anyone will read this but if you do, please feel free to comment on my few words of constructive criticism. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.129.126.100 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Sourcing needs

I have cleaned up the lead paragraph a bit, making only one substantive change by deleting the reference to the Founding Fathers. Wikipedia describes them as (roughly) national leaders in the period of the American Revolution and leading up to the adoption of the Constitution; the Bill of Rights was developed slightly later, by the early sessions of the US Congress under the Constitution. I think the final reference in the lead is accurate, but it should be sourced more specifically. The "In Practice" section is more problematic, and appears to me to violate Wikipedia's standards both for original research and for NPOV. I therefore suggest deleting it in a short time unless it is rewritten to comply with these requirements. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed material

I have removed the In practice section:

Depending upon how one might interpret the latter part of the text, "nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law", U.S. military forces regularly violated the Third Amendment during the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. In both cases, a de facto state of war existed, but forced quartering occurred "in a manner" which was not "prescribed by law". The Congress never officially declared war against the Confederate States, but this would mean that the forced quartering in states loyal to the Union would have been covered by the first part of the Amendment even if the second part did not.

The above material was unsourced and was speculative. Since the above material makes an accusation without any corroborating evidence, I removed it from the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)