The 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.”) is “almost never-used.” Silvera v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002).
We should learn history, especially the history of our Constitution and case law and amendments that followed ratification in 1789 up to today.
England enacted Quartering Act of 1765 required American colonists to bear the cost of feeding and sheltering British troops here and provided that if there was insufficient room for the soldiers in the barracks, they could be quartered in inns, livery stables and ale houses. 5 Geo. 3, c. 33 (1765).
The Quartering Act of 1774, one of the "Intolerable Acts" enacted after the Boston Tea Party, authorized British commanders to quarter troops wherever necessary, including the homes of the colonists. 14 Geo. 3, c. 54 (1774). Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957, 966-67 (2d Cir. 1982) dissent.
Quartering of troops was so abhorred by the colonists that it was included in The Declaration of Independence: The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world . . . For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us . . . The Acts were also directly responsible for the Third Amendment. Gerlachi, 80 The New Eng. Quart. 39 (1966), cited by Atkinson v. Gurich, 248 P.3d 356, 360 n. 22 (Okla. 2011).
With its historical origins rooted in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Third Amendment of the United States Constitution embodies a fundamental value: the sanctity of the home against oppressive governmental intrusion. Engblom, 677 F.2d at 966-67.
England had not invaded, but sent troops to a place still part of the British Empire. Still, the people here were angered by the intrusion - made worse, one may infer, by the character of most British soldiers who came from society’s dregs. .
We anger people of other countries when we send our troops to their countries. Our people might live in places other than private homes, but we are on their soil, even after we have been asked (as in Iraq) to leave.
I doubt many of us would be happy if troops of another country patrolled our streets, used (not very accurate) drones to kill our neighbors, and refused to leave. Our policies neither make us loved nor more secure.
We should cut our military spending in half, withdraw troops and drones from many of the places they now reside, and pursue foreign policies that are consistent with the Declaration of Independence and Art. I, sec. 8 of The Constitution.
A couple of my opponents in the June 2 GOP primary for U.S. House in Indiana’s 5th Congressional District (INCD5) have issued challenges to debate either any other candidate (Abernathy) or me specifically (Beckwith).
I have accepted the challenges, but no one has e-mailed an acceptance. Their positions on The Constitution puts their ignorance on display. Their stands on issues are indefensible. Their support of the current occupant of the Oval Office (a/k/a “dt”) is pathetic.
We do not have to surrender one of the two “major” political parties to forces of ignorance and bigotry. I am the only GOP candidate in the primary who has said, and will say, the policies and values of dt are reprehensible and NOT conservative.
So - contemplate history, the 3rd Amendment, and our foreign policy. People, such as Abernathy and Beckwith, who issue debate challenges that they then duck lack the intellectual integrity to be taken seriously.
I am Mark Small, a GOP candidate for INCD5. I am proudly progressive, pro-choice, pro-environment and antiwar. Those who issue debate challenges and fail to back their words with action can blow those challenges out their anal orifices. I approve of this blog. Hell, I wrote it.
"We anger people of other countries when we send our troops to their countries. Our people might live in places other than private homes, but we are on their soil, even after we have been asked (as in Iraq) to leave."
I am all for reducing our overseas military commitments and cutting our presence in a number of countries. Count me in on that. But the notion we're occupying countries against the wishes of those countries' government, I don't believe is accurate. The only one I can think of that is arguable is Iraq. And there, the apparent problem is the government has never formally asked for our withdrawal. Other than Iraq, I can't think of another country that is even arguable that we're there against the wishes of their government. Now the wishes of their people, who often (but not always) dislike us, is another story. But their government? No.
You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!
Join Civil Discourse Now