Amendment III

 Breaking down the Amendments, part three.

Ah, the “Intolerable Acts” clause. The Third Amendment finds its origin in the Quartering Acts of the English Parliament right up until the American Declaration of Independence. In its essence the “Quartering Act” allowed British soldiers to stay pretty much wherever they pleased. It had been that British Troops could stay in Bars, Inns and Stables or places that were mostly ‘public’ but with all expenses paid by the Colonists. This boiled over into private homes being taken to house British troops, and thus the Third Amendment was born.

And 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

Here we go, first part: No Soldier shall

OK easy enough, and simply put, a declaration of what soldiers representing the “State” can’t do. Pretty much not open to interpretation.

Second part: in time of peace be quartered in any house

Again, easy and in keeping with the first statement, no troops in a house (think establishment not owned by the Government) during a time of peace.

Third part: without the consent of the Owner.

Keeps falling in line, this might be the clearest Right yet. So no soldiers in private residences without consent of the Owner. That was easy.

Fourth part: nor in time of war

Simple again, during a war apparently this can be altered.

Fifth part: but in a manner to be prescribed by law

And here we go I knew we couldn’t get one that was perfectly clear. So, prescribed by law, pretty open to whatever the ruling party at the time decides the “law” should be. With the creation of things like The Department of Homeland Security, this line has the possibility to be significantly grayed. The Government already created the designator “terrorist” as a blanket statement for dang near anything they deem out of line. It once was that a known “organization” with some semblance of defined leadership and a cause could be labeled ‘terrorist’, but today we have ‘terrorist’ States as well as Politicians labeling random political parties ‘terrorist’ based on their positions – not violent actions.

This is important because we need to remember context. This Amendment was written in direct response to the Intolerable Acts actions taken by the British post-Boston Tea Party. Now, what was the Boston Tea Party? Simplistically enough (yes there is far more to it), the Boston Tea Party was a display of complete dissatisfaction with the ruling Government geared towards destroying some relative amount of noticeable commerce. As I stated in the 2^nd Amendment write up, please read about good old John Hancock, loyal port merchant that he was. Now tie this into today, think…”Tea Party” political group taking non-violent (meaning not killing anyone) actions against the Government, seems oddly familiar to the Boston Tea Party. So pay attention when executive orders come out attempting to “clarify” positions, but above all, always ask where such power is coming from. Keep thinking people. Keep thinking.