You know, as Thoreau points out, the chattering classes never report on all the good news on civil rights. Checked out the Third Amendment recently? Looking pretty good, isn't it? In fact, two marines came by demanding a room and a light supper last week, and I told them "The hell I will; we're not officially at war." They grumbled, but they left. Take that, Al Qaeda.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
After reading the title, I assumed this post was going to be about today's jobs number and the resulting market reaction.
" 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. "
Y'see, back in the 12th century, when the Constitution was written, "quartered" meant "cut in four". This amendment doesn't protect you from having soldiers billeted in your house, it merely reserves the right to the owner (and only the owner) to cut the soldiers in four.
Well, OK. The Onion is always an amusing read.
But seriously, I vaguely remember some case in Texas within the last 10 years in which a rancher tried to use the 3rd Amendment to prevent the Air Force from making low-altitude training flights over his property which were effectively making the property useless because they were scaring the livestock to death. Don't recall how the case turned out.
And personally, I'd like to see somebody make a serious effort to use the 3rd to prevent the Border Patrol from running roughshod over private property, the way they do. Couldn't a good lawyer make a strong argument that Border Patrol officers are "soldiers" within the meaning of the 3rd amendment, since they are, after all, armed government employees?
No, a good case can't be made for treating Border Patrol agents as soldiers. For one thing, soldiers are subject to the posse comitatus act, which is directly contrary to the powers of Border Patrol agents.
For another thing, the Border Patrol has a lot of exceptions to normal procedures, because the courts have recognized that enforcing customs means that Border Patrol agents can have extra powers that ordinary police aren't entitled to. That's why the Border Patrol can stop any car they want to within a certain distance of the borders, without the need for probable cause.
Wouldn't a funnier version of this story have the NAQA group talking feverishly about all the quartering threats that Americans now face in order to justify its own existence. Isn't that closer to the way real interest groups operate:
"The threat of quartering has never been greater! The forces of quartering are on the march. The only thing that prevents every American home being subject to forced quartering is NAQA! Your contributions make this important work possible. Help us fight the pro-quartering agenda and their allies on Capitol Hill...."
I doubt the 3rd amendment would apply in the Air force overflight case, maybe if they were hangering jets in his barn. . ..
A more likely application would be in terms of National Guard seconded for border enforcement/drug interdiction. Would National Guardsmen on a border stakeout be considered quartered? If they brought snacks? How about if they caught a nap in the back of a government vehicle? How about regular soldiers instead of National Guardsmen (assuming one could get around posse commitus)?
Better, congress could statutorily define "soldiers" as armed federal employees that don't get quartered in citizens' houses. Then we just statutorily define the current army as "shmoldiers," and quarter away to our heart's content!
(the point being that you can't statutorily get around constitutional requirements, hence the silliness of your attempt to differentiate soldiers from border guards on statutory grounds)