Subject: the chimerical third

32 views
Skip to first unread message

Roy

unread,
Feb 20, 2022, 9:28:41 PMFeb 20
to

Ooops... the message below was sent to m.l.m but got lost in my inbox.

-----------------------------

From: RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com>

Has the third amendment to the Bill of Rights ever
been referenced in a court opinion?

--
Rich

Roy

unread,
Feb 21, 2022, 9:41:34 AMFeb 21
to
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-iii/interps/123

The Third Amendment seems to have no direct constitutional relevance at
present; indeed, not only is it the least litigated amendment in the
Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has never decided a case on the
basis of it.

Rick C

unread,
Feb 21, 2022, 11:21:36 AMFeb 21
to
What does it mean, "no direct constitutional relevance". It is an amendment to the Constitution. How can it not have relevance to the Constitution?

It is very clear as to its meaning. Hard to have any issues to dispute in court. So, yeah, unlikely to be the basis of any Supreme Court decisions.

I assume there are various parts of the Constitution that are clear enough to not end up in court.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

John Levine

unread,
Feb 21, 2022, 4:07:26 PMFeb 21
to
According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
>On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 9:41:34 AM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
>> https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-iii/interps/123
>>
>> The Third Amendment seems to have no direct constitutional relevance at
>> present; indeed, not only is it the least litigated amendment in the
>> Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has never decided a case on the
>> basis of it.

>What does it mean, "no direct constitutional relevance".

It means you should read the article that that sentence was taken from rather than guessing.

A more interesting question is why the Third Amendment was needed. The
Federal goverment has only the powers enumerated in the constitution,
and it is hard for me (and for many others) to see where they would
have the authority to quarter troops without the consent of the
property owner.

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Rick

unread,
Feb 21, 2022, 4:07:47 PMFeb 21
to
"Roy" wrote in message news:sv088d$1c2$1...@dont-email.me...
What about the 27th Amendment? Has that ever been litigated directly? I
know it was referenced during the 2014 Congressional budget fight, but I
don't recall it ever coming up in the Supreme Court

--

John Levine

unread,
Feb 21, 2022, 6:54:02 PMFeb 21
to
>What about the 27th Amendment? Has that ever been litigated directly?

As far as I can tell, the 25th, 26th, and 27th have not been litigated.

The 26th as passed in response to Oregon vs. Mitchell which in 1970
said the Congress can set the minimum age for federal elections but
not for state ones.

John Levine

unread,
Feb 22, 2022, 7:36:08 PMFeb 22
to
According to Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>:
>> A more interesting question is why the Third Amendment was needed. ...

>I thought a lot of the constitution was drafted in the light of British
>tyranny. And one thing good old King George did was quarter soldiers (and
>expect householders to pay for them) on pain of imprisonment ?

Innkeepers mostly, but yes, the crown had quartered soldiers and
people really didn't like it. Except that there were all sorts of
things the British did that the Americans didn't like, which is why
the Consitution enumerated a list of things the new government could
do and no more. Quartering isn't in that list, so why a redundant
amendment about it? Belt and suspenders, I suppose.

>Similarly the second amendment is a reaction to the British trying to ban
>guns.

That's what the current folklore says, but that is false. Recall that the first clause
refers to "a well regulated militia."

The actual reason was that the slave states used armed state patrols to put down slave
revolts and feared that abolitionists in the north would outlaw state militias
and so make them unable to keep their slaves under control.

Read all about it here:

https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/31/2/Articles/DavisVol31No2_Bogus.pdf

RichD

unread,
Apr 11, 2022, 4:02:09 PMApr 11
to
On February 21, John Levine wrote:
> A more interesting question is why the Third Amendment was needed. The
> Federal goverment has only the powers enumerated in the constitution,
> and it is hard for me to see where they would have the authority to quarter
>troops without the consent of the property owner.

Where do the get the authority to create and administer a
so-called retirement fund, of mandatory participation?

Where do the get the authority to dictate the sex discriminations of
rest rooms?

Where do they get the authority to dictate what substances a
person may ingest, or what crops a farmer might cultivate?

--
Rich

RichD

unread,
Apr 11, 2022, 4:17:19 PMApr 11
to
On February 22, 2022 John Levine wrote:
>> Similarly the second amendment is a reaction to the British trying to ban
>> guns.
>
> That's what the current folklore says, but that is false. Recall that the first clause
> refers to "a well regulated militia."
> The actual reason was that the slave states used armed state patrols to put down slave
> revolts and feared that abolitionists in the north would outlaw state militias
> and so make them unable to keep their slaves under control.

The actual reason was to protect and enable a state's right to secede from the
union, if this newfangled 'union' thing didn't work out. The new country had
minimal military, and Rhode Island figured their militia could slap down any
battalion of federal marshals who came hunting.

And, New York fought their endless injun wars with their militia, not a non-existent
'national defense' supplied by the feds.

--
Rich

RichD

unread,
Apr 11, 2022, 4:19:56 PMApr 11
to
On February 21, Roy wrote:
> https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-iii/interps/123
> The Third Amendment seems to have no direct constitutional relevance at
> present; indeed, not only is it the least litigated amendment in the
> Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has never decided a case on the
> basis of it.


The essay proposes an interesting thesis: the amendment implies a certain
relationship between citizens and gummit. Then, such a relationship might
bear on other questions, separate from quartering troops.

e.g. "Considering the rights and limits implied by the Third, as intended by
the framers, we see that the gov't has overstepped its authority in this case..."

I can imagine Scalia writing something like that -

--
Rich


Stuart O. Bronstein

unread,
Apr 11, 2022, 7:25:57 PMApr 11
to
"John Levine" <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:

> A more interesting question is why the Third Amendment was needed.
> The Federal goverment has only the powers enumerated in the
> constitution, and it is hard for me (and for many others) to see
> where they would have the authority to quarter troops without the
> consent of the property owner.

Provide for the national defense.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

Elle N

unread,
Apr 13, 2022, 7:32:03 PMApr 13
to
Yes, many, including U. S. Supreme Court opinions. Some SCOTUS opinions felt
the Third was important enough to justify quoting the Amendment in its entirety.

As to whether SCOTUS 'has ever decided a case on the basis of the Third
Amendment,' I guess this depends on what one means by "on the basis of."

>From the link above, Brown University's Professor Wood writes about the
privacy implications of the Third Amendment. Litigation involving privacy
rights is where the Third seems to come up most often. But I see also some
SCOTUS opinions that rely in part on the Third to defend real property rights,
and at least one opinion that I think speaks of the Third in the context of
limiting the President's power.

I suppose it's fair to say that SCOTUS has never decided a case based
//solely// on an interpretation of the Third Amendment.

Here are five SCOTUS opinions that were based in part on the Third Amendment:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/176/581/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/135/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/497/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/
(mentioned in a mere footnote)


I think anyone who has followed, for one, abortion rights law
would know this.

But again, I grant that Professor Wood had something else
in mind when he published his piece above. It's not like he
does not have the equivalent of justia.com at his disposal.

(Rainy day https://worldle.teuteuf.fr/ stuff.)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages