The Forgotten Amendment

How the Third 'Right' May Justify Itself

Let us get speculative for a moment…

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

When looking back at America’s foundational documents, I am always astonished at the prescience those Founding Fathers possessed. The wisdom it took to ascertain how the words they wrote could be interpreted over the years and decades and centuries has allowed said-words to resonate to this very day.

Of those documents, the ‘Bill of Rights’ (a collection of ten amendments to the at-the-time-recently ratified constitution) was without question one of the most important collection of words written in human history. The legal acknowledgement of basic natural rights - individual rights - and government’s responsibility to protect those rights is unlike anything ever created before or since.

With that noted, to modern readers one of those amendments has not aged as well as the other nine. While obviously considered important when it was written, even the strictest of Originalists oft question the need for it in modern times. It is seldom-to-never referenced in legal cases, considered antiquated in the scope of today’s America.

I am discussing the Third Amendment, and it is written as such…

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.

Due to British actions during the American Revolution this law was vital when written, but now largely viewed as a missive from an age long passed. Even a cursory reading makes it pretty clear that it is one which has outlived its usefulness, and should be rendered obsolete.

Or should it? Enter Eric Adams, mayor of NYC…

This story inspired a video-short I posted last week, but since then I have been ruminating on it further; is it possible that the Third Amendment could protect citizens of the Big Apple from being forced to house individuals who are here illegally? The prospects are tantalizing, and depend entirely on interpreting the word ‘soldier.’

Does it exclusively mean an actual member of any military foreign or domestic, or can it be expanded to include any agent of any government entity. If the latter, can that be further stretched to include any foreign national, especially one which is here illegally?

See where I am going with this?

I know, on the surface it seems like an absurd extension, but there have certainly been examples of such absurdities. Indeed, throughout our history creative interpretations of our Constitution have lead to some interesting conclusions; the Fourteenth Amendment alone has been broadly expanded well beyond its original intent, leading to precedent-establishing - and occasionally questionable - decisions.

The key factors seem to be ‘the times’ in which a decision is rendered… and those serving on the court during said-times. And with the justices we currently have now? As I said above… tantalizing.

Of course, this is likely a moot point. It is doubtful that Mayor Adams will actually attempt to implement his forced-housing suggestion, unless he is heavily invested in committing political suicide; I seriously doubt that is the case.

Still, it is interesting to speculate: Is it possible the most obscure amendment of our revered ‘Bill of Rights’ could finally justify why the Founders thought it was important enough to enshrine for generations to come?

Only time and circumstances can tell that tale.