Leftist/Liberal opinions on the Third Amendment?

[North Sonovia]

"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."

Okay, so, first forum post, please don't hate.

I don't want to sound like a political separatist or anything, but I'd like to hear some opinions of people on the left when it comes to one of the most absolutely irrelevant amendments of today: the Third Amendment.

For those who weren't aware before, the Amendment III is about the right to say no to a soldier who wants to stay quartered in someone's house, typically during a war, as you can see at the top.

If you'll allow me to explain why I'm asking this, Conservatives in America are mostly known for being the most pro-Constitution and pro-Amendments, while Liberals and other left-leaning groups of people in this country are more known for wanting to edit the Amendments to things they believe would be more applicable to modern-day situations. Ignore this. I don't exactly want to remove this since scrolling down would be confusing after everyone's replied to this part, but ignore this. Everyone in the forum is starting to comment on this specific part and is ignoring the main idea, here. You can debate for days on this subject, but this isn't the point. It's quite remotely related in comparison to everything else I wrote here.

I'm just curious what as to what they would think about this specific Amendment, if a situation took place in the United States where this Amendment became relevant again.

My prediction is that the majority of people would want to keep this right, right? After all, that's for you to discuss below, so kindly take the time to do so if you're not particularly busy.

To clarify exactly what I'm asking:

Oh, I understand
i just don't agree

no
both sides want to change the constitution to better enact their version of a "proper" america
the left is just louder about it (despite the fact that the closest effort to changing the constitution in the modern day comes from conservatives pushing for a "balanced budget")

left

Alright. And even if that was or wasn't exactly the case, it wasn't the point.

I'm asking for opinions on it, as in, should it be removed in your opinions? (I'd disagree, well, because I have common sense.)

Should it be edited at all?

What if we got into a devastating war or were preparing for one? With tensions rising in the middle-east, it's surely a possibility, isn't it?

Would you optionally quarter a soldier?

If so, would an ineffective and dysfunctional Department of Defense be the only reason, or would you do that out of pure patriotism? That's mostly what I mean to ask, and I think I'll quote this quote in my first post just to make sure people reading understand me here.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I would keep the third amendment as is, as I would not want soldiers going into my home without consent.


To be honest, I do not view liberals or conservatives as defenders of rights or the amendments. Both will restrict or violate the constitution when convenient to do so.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Well this is unique. I agree that soldiers should not be stationed in other people's homes because it's just...really really weird to live with a total stranger.

[South Alderton]

Well this is unique. I agree that soldiers should not be stationed in other people's homes because it's just...really really weird to live with a total stranger.

I agree, but if we get into a war with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, I'd want to help them out as much as possible. Maybe I'd say yes but only if they're fighting for our side and not the enemy's.

[Vassenor]

I mean it sounds like one of the ones that's been rendered unnecessary by the fact that the Department of Defence is one of the largest land holders in the country now and so no longer needs to billet soldiers in private residences.

[North Sonovia]

I mean it sounds like one of the ones that's been rendered unnecessary by the fact that the Department of Defence is one of the largest land holders in the country now and so no longer needs to billet soldiers in private residences.

Okay, well, subtopic:

What if, somehow, the U.S. Department of Defense we had was really... I'll say this blatantly, really shitty; not exactly functional.

Would you choose to quarter a soldier in your house if you could?

[Tsaivao]

If you'll allow me to explain why I'm asking this, Conservatives in America are mostly known for being the most pro-Constitution and pro-Amendments, while Liberals and other left-leaning groups of people in this country are more known for wanting to edit the Amendments to things they believe would be more applicable to modern-day situations.

This is less an issue about left vs right, and more an issue about explicit versus implicit constructionism. Basically, do you believe that the constitution needs to be followed word-by-word as originally written, or does it need to be followed in the context of how/why it was written? You'll actually find that you see both types of people across the political spectrum, the only thing is that some people use their perspective to push on different issues. For example, I am strict on all amendments except the second, I believe that the purpose of the second amendment can be more fluidly interpreted as the right to be in a militia, not necessarily to defend one's person (and additionally I think putting modern firearm standards up against those from 1780-something is very impractical).

With that said, I have no problem with the third amendment, because it makes total sense. Obviously it's not a problem today, but at the time it was written, lots of Americans had to suffer through being garrisoned by some random Brits. Must have been truly awful!

[Wallenburg]

The third amendment didn't go far enough. Even in wartime, quartering troops is not an obligation of the civilian.

[Nakena]

I'd would argue that the 3rd one is a bit of a historical relic from an era where it was normal and common to force people to house soldiers in their homes.

There have been very few cases where it became legally relevant too since then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Ame ... rpretation

[North Sonovia]

[With that said, I have no problem with the third amendment, because it makes total sense. Obviously it's not a problem today, but at the time it was written, lots of Americans had to suffer through being garrisoned by some random Brits. Must have been truly awful!

I'm fairly sure this amendment applied both ways, as in, about soldiers on your side and soldiers against your side.

So in the context of on your side, fighting against another country today, would you house a soldier if the military, if maybe for some reason, couldn't house one themselves?

[Novostia]

3rd Amendment Is Based

[The Unified Missourtama States]

The whole amendment is only 32 words, you should've posted the whole thing, some people already replying here obviously do not know the whole thing, so here it is:

"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."

[North Sonovia]

The whole amendment is only 32 words, you should've posted the whole thing, some people already replying here obviously do not know the whole thing, so here it is:

"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."

I'll edit it in for the non-Americans to read, thank you.

[Kowani]

If you'll allow me to explain why I'm asking this, Conservatives in America are mostly known for being the most pro-Constitution and pro-Amendments, while Liberals and other left-leaning groups of people in this country are more known for wanting to edit the Amendments to things they believe would be more applicable to modern-day situations.

ahahahahhahahahahahhahaahahahaa

[Atheris]

This is a very important amendment. It should obviously be kept. Also, "conservatives" and "pro-Constitution" are usually mutually exclusive.

[North Sonovia]

If you'll allow me to explain why I'm asking this, Conservatives in America are mostly known for being the most pro-Constitution and pro-Amendments, while Liberals and other left-leaning groups of people in this country are more known for wanting to edit the Amendments to things they believe would be more applicable to modern-day situations.

ahahahahhahahahahahhahaahahahaa

Do... do you not understand?

The American right wants to keep the Amendments the way they are. The American left wants to edit them to make sure they're a bit more up to date, no bias intended.

And if you don't mind me asking, what side are you on?

[Kowani]

ahahahahhahahahahahhahaahahahaa

Do... do you not understand?

Oh, I understand
i just don't agree

The American right wants to keep the Amendments the way they are. The American left wants to edit them to make sure they're a bit more up to date, no bias intended.

no
both sides want to change the constitution to better enact their version of a "proper" america
the left is just louder about it (despite the fact that the closest effort to changing the constitution in the modern day comes from conservatives pushing for a "balanced budget")

And if you don't mind me asking, what side are you on?

left

[Adamede]

Well this is unique. I agree that soldiers should not be stationed in other people's homes because it's just...really really weird to live with a total stranger.

I agree, but if we get into a war with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, I'd want to help them out as much as possible. Maybe I'd say yes but only if they're fighting for our side and not the enemy's.

You can do that without them being stationed in your house.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yeah it would be weird to have a soldier just go into someones house and demand to sleep there.

[Odreria]

I do not see a need to get rid of the third amendment.

[North Sonovia]

Do... do you not understand?

Oh, I understand
i just don't agree

The American right wants to keep the Amendments the way they are. The American left wants to edit them to make sure they're a bit more up to date, no bias intended.

no
both sides want to change the constitution to better enact their version of a "proper" america
the left is just louder about it (despite the fact that the closest effort to changing the constitution in the modern day comes from conservatives pushing for a "balanced budget")

And if you don't mind me asking, what side are you on?

left

Alright. And even if that was or wasn't exactly the case, it wasn't the point. I'm asking for opinions on it, as in, should it be removed in your opinions? (I'd disagree, well, because I have common sense.) Should it be edited at all? What if we got into a devastating war or were preparing for one? With tensions rising in the middle-east, it's surely a possibility, isn't it? Would you optionally quarter a soldier? If so, would an ineffective and dysfunctional Department of Defense be the only reason, or would you do that out of pure patriotism? That's what I mean to ask, and I think I'll quote this quote in my first post just to make sure people reading understand me here.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I would keep the third amendment as is, as I would not want soldiers going into my home without consent.


To be honest, I do not view liberals or conservatives as defenders of rights or the amendments. Both will restrict or violate the constitution when convenient to do so.

All Persons on NS can comment on all general forum threads. I commend you for being fair and balanced to both sides. In Politics everything works both ways, this is a real objective Fact?

[Lady Victory]

The Republican Party is presently the greatest threat to the U.S. Constitution. They are very much not pro-Constitution no matter how much lip service they may pay to the Amendments they regularly disregard, violate, and ignore.

[Aleisynium]

It's not a right typically granted in constitutions, but there is no good reason to remove it. It's a good right to have, just unusual.

[Tsaivao]

Oh, I understand
i just don't agree

no
both sides want to change the constitution to better enact their version of a "proper" america
the left is just louder about it (despite the fact that the closest effort to changing the constitution in the modern day comes from conservatives pushing for a "balanced budget")

left

Alright. And even if that was or wasn't exactly the case, it wasn't the point. I'm asking for opinions on it, as in, should it be removed in your opinions? (I'd disagree, well, because I have common sense.) Should it be edited at all? What if we got into a devastating war or were preparing for one? With tensions rising in the middle-east, it's surely a possibility, isn't it? Would you optionally quarter a soldier? If so, would an ineffective and dysfunctional Department of Defense be the only reason, or would you do that out of pure patriotism? That's what I mean to ask, and I think I'll quote this quote in my first post just to make sure people reading understand me here.

We've been at war in the middle east for decades now, and that's never justified quartering soldiers, simply because North America isn't and probably would never be at risk of invasion in the foreseeable future. It's simply too logistically complicated for someone to try and land an army here against the largest military and police force in the world. Even if it were the case though, I would still uphold the amendment. Just because it's wartime doesn't mean laws have to disappear (even though in actuality they often unfortunately do).