Congratulations to the Instant Classic quartet from Indiana, for having won the International Barbershop Quartet championship in Pittsburgh Saturday night -- in a bit of a surprise. They gave a fantastic performance in the final round, including a ballad that just nailed the audience -- and the judges. Me, too. Google the heck out of these guys and listen to them.
OK, back to the Bill of Rights, which is almost as important. This is the third in a series of musing on aspects of the first ten amendments.
_ _ _
As we come off the holiday weekend, spending time watching fireworks, steering clear of ISIS and crowds as well (at least we stayed away from crowds), it's the perfect time to relax and ponder the least controversial of the Bill of Rights -- the Third Amendment.
It is so obscure or, at least, little-mentioned, that if you don't look it up, you might have forgotten what it is by number, and maybe, if pressed, you might admit that you pretty much forgot that we even had a constitutional provision for this.
So here goes -- the one Amendment that has not even once been the basis of a Supreme Court decision:
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.
Do you remember how we have been hacking through some really odd Supreme Court decisions recently, where the intent of the Framers has melted a bit in favor of recognition of what we can only term "contemporary mores"? Well, given the rather uncontroversial nature of the Third Amendment, perhaps we should just let our mind wander to hypothetical cases and amuse ourselves with what this Court might do.
After all ...
What is "peace"? In the 1780s, we had a much more comfortable definition of what "peace" means. You have a war when country A attacks country B, and you have peace after one of the two surrenders with peace terms, and that's it. Poof -- peace.
Are we at war now? We have soldiers deployed around the world. Until the bizarre self-subjugation policy of the current White House, we had become an effective force around the globe in defense of the rights of free nations. We have had, in the past twenty years alone, actions and engagements in Bosnia,Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya ... at what point were we in "time of war" as written in the Amendment, and at what point in those years were we in "time of peace"?
I do not know, but perhaps we ought to talk about that. You see, all of the assumptions that I grew up with, about the role of the USA in the world, that sort of thing, have now been blown away by this administration. So what's to say that they might not decide that, since in the view of some -- and there's only one who appears to matter -- we are "at war"?
That could become very interesting. I read the text of the Amendment as saying that in time of war, soldiers can be forcibly quartered in my house if "in a matter prescribed by law." Not "prescribed by law passed by Congress, mind you. What has the force of law anymore? SCOTUS just made gay marriage the law of the land, by judicial fiat. Is that a "law" as contemplated by the Third Amendment?
What is a "soldier"? The Amendment is interestingly silent on that. Surely we all accept that members of the Army count, right? Do active-duty members of the Navy count? Surely they don't think of themselves as "soldiers", but could we imagine SCOTUS regarding them as able to be forcibly quartered in my house in peacetime, since they are not mentioned? After all, there was a navy in the nascent USA; why was it not acknowledged in the Amendment -- No soldier or sailor ..."? And if we assume in the Navy, what of members of the Marines? What of the Air Force, not even contemplated 225 years ago. The National Guard?
And if we are so expansive in our definition, would the Court also grandfather in those entities devoted to keeping domestic peace, like the FBI -- or your local police force. Can you imagine having your house taken over forcibly by the FBI as a command post, at the direction and order of the president, without your consent? Forget whether the Court deems such an action as lawful under the Third Amendment -- can you imagine a president deeming his executive orders to be law, and doing something like that?
I would never imagine a president with enough contempt for his people to do so. But I think we have one now, and if we have one, we could have another -- or this one could pull such a stunt before his term ends.
And you thought the Third Amendment was innocuous.
Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."
No comments:
Post a Comment