Issue 14.15
Most people are very aware of at least one of the rights encompassed by the 1st and 2nd Amendments (religion, speech, assembly, bearing arms, etc.) By contrast, the 3rd Amendment is seldom mentioned and most could probably not tell you what it says. What this forgotten Amendment says is important in and of itself, but what it implies is even more critical.
During the time leading up to and during the Revolutionary War, British troops were regularly quartered (housed) in the homes of civilians (who were at that time British subjects). There was no request or permission involved – you were simply ordered under threat of punishment or expulsion from your home to provide the space. This was done without compensation for the trouble or cost involved and the home owners were often expected to supply food and other necessities as part of the deal. This was not only a way for the government to save money and give more comfortable situations to the troops, but it was often used as a way to punish or keep an eye on those suspected of being disloyal to the Crown.
As you can imagine, the American people were seriously unhappy with this arrangement, even among those who had been loyal to England. As a result, when the Amendments were written and considered, the 3rd Amendment guaranteed that government would do no such thing to their citizens in times of peace without the owner’s consent and, if it were to become necessary in time of war, that it would have to be done in accordance with law created to protect and compensate those affected.
More important in our day than the specific guarantee is the difference in perception and action toward private property. England considered everything in their domain to be the property of the government. This is an outgrowth of the concept of monarchy where the king owns everything and can, by edict or simple action, take what he wants from the people who are his “subjects”.
Our founders had a different vision – one where the individual owns the fruit of his labors and the government can’t take or even use that property unless the owner has violated the law and must surrender that property as a punishment by a jury of his or her peers after being given ample opportunity to defend themselves and prove their innocence. They understood and wrote in considerations that, in time of emergency such as war, situations might arise where authorities have to take actions otherwise unworthy, but that in such extremes, the people thus troubled must be compensated by law.
This concept was understood over 20 years earlier when the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence included property as one of the unalienable, God-given rights. The word was not included in the final draft because some thought it confusing and necessarily wordy to explain in that document the difference between the control of one’s own property and the right to “have” property regardless of the persons willingness to work or create value. If it were misunderstood, it might have been construed that the government “owed” a certain amount of or type of property to each citizen. That concept was in direct opposition to the concept of freedom accompanied by personal responsibility that the founders understood and revered.
Today we have many examples of politicians who seem to think the government owes people property on the one hand, while they also think it is fine to take your property if they (the government) think they need it. This is a dangerous return to monarchical thinking where the government owns the people and their things. Under the Constitution, the government is owned and controlled by the people, not the other way around. We must exercise diligence and challenge our representatives to always keep it that way.
Lynn West is a thinker, a teacher and a patriot. You can reach him through email at forgingthefuture2021@gmail.com or through this newspaper. Liberty is a state of being which must be continually created. These articles can help all of us discover the ways we can contribute to that outcome.