When we discussed the Bill of Rights broadly last week, we speculated that the Third Amendment was the only one of the original ten that the government didn’t appear to be actively violating.
But that didn’t sit quite right with us, because the federal government is actively violating all our rights. So, we dug into the Third and its potential modern applications. And our instincts were correct.
The Third Amendment is the least litigated right of the original ten, and the Supreme Court has never decided a case on the basis of it. But according to Gordon S. Wood, Professor of History Emeritus at Brown University, the Third Amendment is relevant in the debate of Americans’ right to privacy.
“The federal government today is not likely to ask people to house soldiers in their homes, even in times of war. Nevertheless, the amendment has some modern implications. It suggests the individual’s right of domestic privacy—that people are protected from governmental intrusion into their homes; and it is the only part of the Constitution that deals directly with the relationship between the rights of individuals and the military in both peace and war—rights that emphasize the importance of civilian control over the armed forces. Some legal scholars have even begun to argue that the amendment might be applied to the government’s response to terror attacks and natural disasters, and to issues involving eminent domain and the militarization of the police.”
The National Constitution Center connects these dots more succinctly:
“Today, there are few court cases about quartering and the Third Amendment, but the fears engendered by the Quartering Acts are linked to two other amendments. The need for a well-regulated militia described in the Second Amendment was a counterbalance to a standing army, while the home as a zone of privacy is a key concept in the Fourth Amendment.”
We’ll talk about the Fourth Amendment tomorrow, but given these expert takes on the Third Amendment, is it any wonder that the State keeps trying to convince Americans that they have no right to privacy?
Law schools around the country teach that the US Constitution contains no explicit right to privacy. Those of us attempting to conserve the Constitution for our future generations must make a stand on this now.
As we discussed yesterday with the Second Amendment, the high court has consistently ruled on this, first recognizing the right to privacy in Griswold v Connecticut (1965). The Supreme Court found a right to privacy, derived from penumbras, the shadow or downstream effect, of other explicitly stated constitutional protections. Personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments were leveraged in Griswold to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution.
The progressive revisionists that control all our institutions don’t want you to know that you have an implied right to privacy.
Yet, they swore an oath to preserve that right.
DEMAND FOR REMEDY: Immediately codify into law American’s Third Amendment right to privacy, explicitly applicable to the federal government’s response to terror attacks, natural disasters, pandemic response, and any and all issues involving eminent domain and the militarization of the police.
Here is today’s letter to Congress:
ATTENTION CONGRESS:
The Constitution of the United States is under attack from bipartisan domestic enemies. You seem to have forgotten your oath. Consider this a reminder – our inalienable, natural rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and it is your solemn duty to protect them.
Your media partners keep telling us that the US Constitution does not provide for a right to privacy. This is, like everything else you’re doing, a revisionist view of long standing precedent protecting this right.
The Third Amendment is the least litigated right of the original ten, and the Supreme Court has never decided a case on the basis of it. But according to Gordon S. Wood, Professor of History Emeritus at Brown University, the Third Amendment is critical:
“The federal government today is not likely to ask people to house soldiers in their homes, even in times of war. Nevertheless, the amendment has some modern implications. It suggests the individual’s right of domestic privacy—that people are protected from governmental intrusion into their homes; and it is the only part of the Constitution that deals directly with the relationship between the rights of individuals and the military in both peace and war—rights that emphasize the importance of civilian control over the armed forces. Some legal scholars have even begun to argue that the amendment might be applied to the government’s response to terror attacks and natural disasters, and to issues involving eminent domain and the militarization of the police.”
The National Constitution Center connects these dots more succinctly:
“Today, there are few court cases about quartering and the Third Amendment, but the fears engendered by the Quartering Acts are linked to two other amendments. The need for a well-regulated militia described in the Second Amendment was a counterbalance to a standing army, while the home as a zone of privacy is a key concept in the Fourth Amendment.”
We’re going to remind you about the Fourth Amendment tomorrow, but given these expert takes on the Third, we are beginning to realize why you all in The State keep trying to convince us that this right does exist.
Because it further limits your power.
Law schools around the country teach that the US Constitution contains no explicit right to privacy. Those of us attempting to conserve the Constitution for our future generations must make a stand on this now. That should include YOU as the representatives we send to Washington to protect those rights.
The progressive revisionists that control all our institutions don’t want Americans to know there is a Constitutional right to privacy.
Remember that oath you swore?
DEMAND FOR REMEDY: Immediately codify into law American’s Third Amendment right to privacy, explicitly applicable to the federal government’s response to terror attacks, natural disasters, pandemic response, and any and all issues involving eminent domain and the militarization of the police.
Did you miss the First and Second? You can go back and resend – and with a CD Membership, you can send every message at no additional cost.
First Amendment: Abolish speech codes, remove 230 protections, and restore the First Amendment, uninfringed to the American people.
Second Amendment: The political science is settled – any infringement is a violation and will not be tolerated!