Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/20/13 at 8:58 pm to Brick67
quote:
1812? When did the Civil War occur?
I was being facetious, my point is the 3rd Amendment is outdated. That was the original question, which part of the Constitution is outdated. That's just one example.
quote:
The Constitution is a document intended to limit the Federal Gov't and this amendment places a limit on the Fed in an explicit manner. Just because we "might" not have a need to house troops in someone's home, if we didn't have the 3d Amendment, the Federal Gov't "could" do that if it weren't explicitly stated they cannot.
They can still do it:
quote:
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.
If Congress wanted to they could pass a law allowing U.S. Soldiers to stay in private homes. They've never needed to do that though, because the amendment is outdated, which was my whole point in the first place.
This post was edited on 10/20/13 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 10/20/13 at 9:38 pm to Stonehog
It is still relevent because they left something in for future cases just in case. I'll cede that at least in our current situation, there should never be a need for this. However, we cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. You have a very minor point about the current environment and it is easy to think this may never happen. However, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. FYI, there was a direct violation of the third amendment that occured during WWII when in the fight against Japan, the US Govt forcibly removed native Aleutian Islanders in Alaska and quartered military members in private homes WITHOUT PASSING A LAW in accordance with the third amendment. I don't trust that to never happen again. I'd rather leave it in place. The internment of Natural born Americans of Japanese descent was unconstitutional as well but it happened. Did no one ever think that would happen either?
Just because there is a low probability we need this amendment today, there is no compelling need to repeal this amendment. Additionally, when we repeal we leave the original amendment in place and add a new one negating the old one to leave the scars of past mistakes so future generations don't repeat the same mistakes. For example, we did this with Prohibition by putting it in place with the 18th Amendment and then repealing it 13 years later with the 21st Amendment. So if you feel strongly enough about the 3d Amendment and want to repeal it, start a drive to have a Constitutional Convention and push for a 28th Amendment repealing the 3d Amendment.
Just because we think the document is outdated does not mean we simply ignore it or make up new interpretations of it to force it to fit whatever narrative we want. Both parties have been guilty of this. We've also been warned by the founding generation that "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"--Ben Franklin. The Constitution puts the federal gov't in a defined box to at a minimum, make it extremely difficult for an oppressive government to grow roots in current or future generations. It also protects the sovereign states of the union. Unfortunately that was usurped with the 17th Amendment.
Just because there is a low probability we need this amendment today, there is no compelling need to repeal this amendment. Additionally, when we repeal we leave the original amendment in place and add a new one negating the old one to leave the scars of past mistakes so future generations don't repeat the same mistakes. For example, we did this with Prohibition by putting it in place with the 18th Amendment and then repealing it 13 years later with the 21st Amendment. So if you feel strongly enough about the 3d Amendment and want to repeal it, start a drive to have a Constitutional Convention and push for a 28th Amendment repealing the 3d Amendment.
Just because we think the document is outdated does not mean we simply ignore it or make up new interpretations of it to force it to fit whatever narrative we want. Both parties have been guilty of this. We've also been warned by the founding generation that "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"--Ben Franklin. The Constitution puts the federal gov't in a defined box to at a minimum, make it extremely difficult for an oppressive government to grow roots in current or future generations. It also protects the sovereign states of the union. Unfortunately that was usurped with the 17th Amendment.
This post was edited on 10/20/13 at 10:44 pm
Page 15 of 15
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News