3. Amendment to the United States Constitution
The 3rd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is part of the Bill of Rights .
text
"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."
"No soldier may be billeted in a house in peacetime without the consent of the owner, and in wartime only in the manner prescribed by law."
history
The original text of the US Constitution aroused some resistance because civil rights were not adequately guaranteed. In response to this, the Third Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was proposed by the US Congress in 1789 . On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights had been ratified by the necessary number of states and thus passed.
It was the intention of the founding fathers of the USA who wrote this constitutional amendment to prevent soldiers from being able to seize the houses of citizens again, as the British soldiers under the protection of the Quartering Act (German: " Quartering Act ") did before American independence movement had done.
Billeting
The Third Amendment is one of the least quoted (and some would say the most out of date) sections of the US Constitution. Its importance has declined sharply since the American independence movement.
The only process in which a federal court was asked to invalidate a law or an act under the third amendment was Engblom v. Carey , in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pronounced its verdict in 1982. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has jurisdiction over the states of Connecticut , Vermont and New York . In 1979 New York State prison officials went on strike; they were then thrown out of the discounted apartments they were entitled to as prison officials, and their apartments were assigned to the National Guards who had temporarily taken over their jobs. The prison officials' third amendment lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that they did not own the apartments. In the revision process, however, the term “owner” was interpreted more generously. In the absence of precedents on the Third Amendment before the Supreme Court , the Court of Appeals relied on judgments on the Fourth Amendment as both amendments relate to private rights (the former to billeting, the latter to confiscation ). It was found that the Supreme Court had rejected the view that the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment apply only to owners of property by stating:
-
[O] ne who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy.
(German: someone who owns, legally owns or controls property will in all likelihood legitimately expect privacy.)
Similarly, the Court of Appeals granted tenants the rights granted by the Third Amendment.
