The point is, the military is not allowed to even sleep in that spare room, they certainly are not allowed to come over, and take you to a prison where they detain you indefinitely.
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.
I know people wonder what that amendment means. How is it relevant? Why is our third right, our right to have the living room floor clear of sleeping soldiers?
For a long time I thought it read “Foreign” soldiers, but nope, it means keeping the house clear of soldiers, is a fundamental right.
You may think with the recent patriotic war, letting soldiers crash near the fire, would be encouraged- but local militias absolutely need the consent of the owner; should militias be about instilling an order, that may withstand.
And of course the third amendment fails to deal with the critical issue, of soldiers sleeping out on your front yard; wouldn’t that be one for the courts? “The third amendment says they may not sleep in the house? Does that include the front yard?”
Really, honestly, where does this concern come from?
In the days of the Roman Republic, Hannibal from North Africa, united a wide crew of people, and by way of Spain and France, attacked Roman Italy. This was all Hannibal wanted to do. So pretty soon, you had Hannibal’s army, and the Roman Republic Armies, out marching each other all over Italy; and there was a real danger of soldiers sleeping on your couches.
Even more so, during the colder months of Italy, hostilities cease and both armies hunker down for three months; same way as some things can’t be done in the winter. So while camping out away from town, was certainly practiced, some winters and some parts of the army stayed in the houses in towns.
And this is precisely what we are protected from. That way if their were internal insurrections, the federal government would be on the side of the homeowner i.e., encouraging peace, discouraging, implicitly, soldiers marching around.
And this is such a prime right as to be the third right, right after the second right, which encourages militias. Some say militias are against NDAA. In other words, after the 5 basic encouragements of speech, religion, the press(?) counciling, and litigation, the bill of rights become concerned about war or soldiers or the military. Both encouraging militias in the second amendment, yet discouraging the automatic yielding to them, that may come with enemy forces.
The main reason for The United States Constitution is that it unites, even binds, the states into a vise from whereby warfare between the states is impossible. And certainly this is a wonderful blessing, to be nowhere near a polity or time in history, forced to choose between Hannibal’s Army, and Roman Armies. And the securing of the liberty that goes along with this tranquility is the prime promotion of our founders. And to remind us to it, this distant allusion to classical times, our reminisces, and blessing, both arcane and unconscious, a psychological amendment, the third amendment.
And yet of course, seemingly long past the days of militias, the third amendment becomes painfully ironic. All of a sudden you realize why the third amendment is relevant in your life. For the soldiers are your own government, taking you away, without even telling you why, and you, a home-owner, user. Clearly we the people set the parameters for the scope of government action, particularly upon ourselves. Clearly their is the intention to protect ourselves from our government, (the ancient Egyptians used government to enslave and regulate its people, the original National Socialism).
So if the military, which is an agent in this bill, and all in the military are soldiers, come to your door, to indefinitely detain you without charge; you may say, if you may not even rest here without my permission, soldier, you certainly can not just come take me away.
I think there are points the government is missing. For instance, Americans and neighbors can keep an eye on suspicious people and homes, and alert authorities appropriately, and even more so, encourage and promote a virtuous and moral life, Americans take to.
Americans were and are more empowered when they make local decisions together in local peaceful assemblies. This right has been violated, and so Americans are seen as underpowered enough to require legislation where the government looks after us.
Secondly the government doesn’t understand, the homeowner and citizen, outranks the government in this regard. Homeowners are who the government is for. IF there are dangerous people out there, we must work to catch them, but not sacrifice basic rights that luster this country. Homeowners and home users, are to be respected and worked with by the government.
The funny thing, is that Hannibal, made a name for himself, and gained the respect of the roman republic for precisely not keeping roman prisoners or captured roman allies as prisoners. If he caught them, he would set them free, and in return, this had the calculated effect of inducing a loyalty where the soldier and mercenaries converted to fighting for Hannibal, or barring that, the captured prisoners would run away and neither be inclined to fight Hannibal who was so kind to let them go, or else, if drafted back into the roman army, wouldn’t fight so hard against Hannibal.
The point is, this is all according to Livy, this policy was so effective, on all the above terms, that the Romans soon adopted a policy of not keeping prisoners, and revered Hannibal, as one who effectively combined peace and war. The prevailing military wisdom of those times, flies in the face of NDAA and Gitmo, now. The idea is if you let POWs go, they may help you out of gratefulness, nor will they be so likely to fight to the death or unfairly against you. This is the sound reasoning of Hannibal, and shows why he was revered by the Roman Republic as a military leader.
This information is from Livy. Livy from scores of books chronicling Roman History, from the beginning, when Mars raped a vestal virgin, and his books regarding the wars with Hannibal, have many more pages about Hannibal, then about the Republic and its forces. Same with Herodotus; his long book about the history of the ancient world, written 400 years before Livy, was 70% about non-Greek’s, like Persians and Egyptians.
I was reading the third amendment again “nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” So I guess the whole rationale for the slogan, “The War on Terror” was to market a coloring of our protection from terrorists as a war, upon a public forced to accept such distribution, for the purpose of conforming to the third amendment’s stipulation that in times of war, certain uses of the public’s house may be prescribed by law.
1) Is the protection of America from terrorist forces war? Well it may be violent, but war officially involves, uniforms, and known governments. Al Qaeda may be a government, but not one in power, the way terrorists often desire becoming the government, or influencing government policy and behavior; but that is intrinsically not the way of the people, and the people are the way to government. Thus protecting from terrorism is certainly not traditional war. It is violence and sniping from a small tribe far away, not a nation, nor a government the people respect any where. If anything, they should be reigned in by their people, Arabs, as an agency that does not represent the Arabs, but confuses the issue, for suspicious purpose.
2) Secondly this is something prime diplomacy, not violence can resolve. Publicly casting Islam as an evil religion that oppresses Arabs and Native Tribal Religions, should provide the dissipation of Islam the desire for religious freedom desires.
So no, under wise policy, and honest accounting, the war on terror is not a war, but a defense against a rogue element. A threat is cast, but cast by a small group, without popular support, fanatics, who don’t deserve the same light as soldiers; uniquely, suspiciously motivated by religious government.
In fact, this is a unique historical instance, where a government is up against a religion. Mostly governments are up against governments. Does “war” define a conflict between a nation and a religion? Or is “war” strictly between nations, or people’s? Wouldn’t logically then we use christianity and diplomacy, or spirituality and nonviolence, to defeat Islam through an advocation of their tribal religions?
So the whole case this is a war on terror, has to be firmly made and debated in public; for the government is not allowed to take away our rights, unless war is declared, and even then, and as now, we are up against a small group, not a country, or a people. It is very easy to make the class action case in court pursuant to section code, the government is not allowed to take away constitutional rights, except perhaps in times of war, as proscribed by new law. So there must be a public debate as to whether the defense from terror is a war.
So there must be a public debate as to whether the defense from terror is a war. Certainly it is not as big as WW2 or Viet Nam, in terms of the numbers we are against. Maybe it is too small to qualify as a war? Maybe the assumed extension into American homes by the enemy is nowhere near what the new laws assume?
Also, the point of the United States Constitution, is ensure peacetime between the states. So war is taken pretty seriously. Being at peace, is our goal, among the states, and I hope internationally. Because peace among the states is a premium, the assets that go along with peace, such as not having to harbor soldiers, or be taken from your home without charge, there seems a value against foreign war as well, though that does not seem grasped by our micro-historians, the news media.
With the value of peace assumed so, we can color the governments attempt to deal with radical Islam, as trying to be defined as a war. Diplomacy is relegated, and because Islam isn’t taken on per se, as an oppressive ideology, whose public relation can convert Arabs, how can we conclude our government is making an honest effort, thus doubly, on counts of the priority of domestic effects, and the count of international affairs bending to diplomacy, not violence, we may conclude, the defense against terror is different than what we call war; and we can cite specific differences. Which is not to say there are not some similiarities.
Can we not say, if there were internal insurrections, against which the U.S. Constitution has worked, as designed, and the federal army forced out onto the land, declaring war on insurgents, couldn’t the federal government just making a law, since this is wartime, our soldiers may stay in your house? Is that the intent? Would that have happened? Could internal insurrections go down any other way? Certainly if the insurrection was limited to a small area, or region, the imposition of excessive laws, wartime “justifies”, promotes, could not be imposed everywhere.
Likewise, if the threat of terror is from radical islam, how can the apply the rules used to attack that base, to the more peaceful bases, and more legitimately nonviolent threats about? How hypocritical is it to imply there is a war against Terror, thus equating the attacks from Muslim extremists to a government against us, with a hierarchal shema and uniforms and training camps, and then use the laws we use to prosecute that base attacking us, to prosecute those and groups that have come no where close to the violations Al Quaeda is deemed responsible for? How hypocritical and manipulative is that? It is like saying because we are at war with France, we are at war with Spain, and Spain and France are not allies.
Likewise, if insurrectionist could justify a cruelty to the people merely by the government employing excessive laws. If the enemy you are fighting, sets a moral example, he will get more converts, likewise, if the U.S. is acting immorally, they will lose adherents. It was exactly what Hannibal schooled the Roman Republic with, that if you are kind to, and release your POWs, sometimes, if they are mercenaries, they will fight for you. Likewise, by your mercy, less inclined to take arms against you. And god forbid they ever violate their pledge and fight you again, they will know there is no need to fight to the death, because Hannibal releases his prisoners.
Regarding whether the federal government can claim defense from terror is a war; The feeling I get is that there are degrees of situations and this is not a situation, while at an advanced degree, is not the same degree as war. And that sensitivity to this point, the degree of the situation, between peace and war, is a strong consideration the people want the president to have. They want to relate to his assesment of the fear; less be victims of overreaching government behavior.
Dif marriage means can’t reproduce, so war involves two peoples or governments; redefine protection from terror, not necessarily war. This analysis squarely points the responsibility with terrorists to lie in the people’s nations and governments and even cultures these terrorist comes from, rather than the U.S.. If Arab government can not control its terrorists people something is very wrong. Those very governments, than, must be, unpopular. So this is a regional issue involving arab nations whose point be to sell us oil, rather than traditionally govern, as not all traditional governments wisely part with natural resources. To condemn the American People to this condign of repressive laws, without addressing the issues involved of the Arab world, to me pshycologicall complex shows the messed up subverted for oil arab governments is the karma on our increasingly repressive government. And the solution is not more oil from other sources, but less waste and more wisdom.