What the Founding Fathers Probably Meant: Part 4

Amendment Three: “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.”

The third amendment states, very specifically, that the eventual army that would be raised and trained by the government, the intent to do so being tacitly established in the second amendment, would never be forcibly housed in the homes of American citizens, be it in peacetime or war, barring the meeting of very specific conditions as prescribed under law.  Those conditions would be clearly outlined in the statutes regarding martial law.

The third amendment, taking a back seat to only two others, is a prime example of how the pressing concerns of the founding fathers at the birth of the nation had a profound impact upon their mindsets.  And it was a reasonable concern, then, as Britain, in its attempts to quell the coming revolution, regularly “stationed” its troops in the homes of those suspected to be insurrectionists, thereby severely limiting the homeowner’s ability to work towards independence.  It was because of this that many early revolutionists were found and punished for their sympathies.

While an incredibly valid concern at the drafting of The Constitution, two hundred and more years later, it no longer seems nearly so much so.  Admittedly, this is in part because it was so established when the country was founded, because we have for every generation since not had to worry about a group of soldiers knocking on the front door and taking over our homes without some damn good justification.  And I’d like to think that, in a state of emergency, when the National Guard shows up to help victims of disaster, any good Americans would gladly welcome them in.

At the same time, what seemed so vital then is antiquated now and, while good to have on the books, isn’t nearly as relevant as some of the things which came after, such as the amendments which protect civil liberties in the legal system.  Even given its continued efficacy, its importance as a primary amendment has been removed with the passing of time. 

This shows two things.  First, The Constitution was meant to be an organic body, reflecting those things which are of real, pressing concern to the health of our nation at any given point in our history.  Second, the founding fathers were relying on us, their descendants, to have the good sense to recognize when it was time to let go of tradition and do what was best for the nation, just as they did.  I mean, imagine how radical these concepts were back then, drawing from ideas and philosophies from across both time and the known world and flying in the face of the social order as it was known across The Western World at the time.  And, in so doing, they forever changed the world.

While things like the 14^th amendment have shown that we’re capable of the first part, we’re still lacking a great deal on the second, choosing to hold fast sometimes, as seems to be human nature, to outdated concepts in favor of facing the real work of change.  I’m talking to all the people who say that changing the way we deal with gun control is impossible, or that tax, tort and education reform, from the ground up, just aren’t feasible.  They are, but they will take work, concerted effort and, most importantly, a solidarity that our nation seems to lack most of the time but which, it has been shown over and over, is possible when we truly try.