Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
The Third Amendment
Transcript of The Third Amendment
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.
During times of peace, the military may not house its troops in private homes without the owner's consent
During times of war, the military may not house its troops in private homes except in accordance with established legal procedure
What does it mean?
The Third Amendment of the Constitution was introduced because of the complaints against King George III in the Declaration of Independence.
"for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us"
A response to the Quartering Act passed by the British parliament during the American Revolutionary War
allowed the British Army to house soldiers in private residences
Part of the Bill of Rights
Introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison
Amendment proposed on September 28th, 1789
Ratified by December 15th, 1791
Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1st, 1792
The United States has not been regularly confronted by standing armies in its history
Therefore, the Third Amendment has produced little litigation
However, there has been one significant court case dealing with the Third Amendment:
Engblom v. Carey
Engblom v. Carey
Initiated by a 1979 strike by New York State correction officers
While officers were on strike, their duties were performed by activated National Guardsmen
At Mid-Orange Correctional Facility (& other similar facilities), employees were evicted from employee housing so members of the National Guard could be housed
Two of the evicted employees, Marianne Engblom and Charles Palmer filed suit against the state of New York and its governor, Hugh Carey
Decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
National Guardsmen legally qualify as soldiers
The amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities
The protection of the amendment extends beyond home owners
Majority stated that the officers' occupancy in the rooms were covered under legal rules of tenancy & protected under the third amendment
Case remanded to district court, where it was decided in the defendant's favor
due to the principle that the defendants were covered by a qualified immunity as agents of the state unless they knowingly acted illegally
Judge Irving Kaufman maintained that the officers' occupancy was covered under the lesser protection of employee housing and that the special circumstances of residency on prison guards superseded Third Amendment protection
How has it changed the United States?
Before the amendment, if a war was held in America, troops could use any home they wished to stay in until they were called elsewhere
Now, homeowners are entitled to more privacy in their residences
Subordinates military authority to civilian control and safeguards against abuses that can be perpetrated by standing armies and professional soldiers
The Third Amendment, while not used regularly today, remains in place so that the government is reminded to respect private property, specifically that the homes of the citizens should be free from intrusion by the government
Some lawyers use the Third Amendment to argue rights of privacy
The recent actions of the NSA has brought forth extreme controversy in the rights of privacy for Americans
While "privacy" is not directly addressed in the Constitution, most agree that it is implied
Monitors phone records (content & phone numbers)
Social networking posts
Raw internet traffic
According to a judge, their actions are legal
Some argue that it's in violation of the Constitutional Amendments, including the third amendment
The Constitution does not directly address privacy, but it has been interpreted this way
A level of surveillance is necessary, but the question is, where is the line drawn? When is our privacy invaded?