tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post2591574975036288076..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: People Turned Out of Their HousesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-78469020579231397682007-11-17T22:40:00.000-05:002007-11-17T22:40:00.000-05:00The Third Amendment definitely reflected a worry t...The Third Amendment definitely reflected a worry that prevailed in the 1700s but which we no longer have. On the other hand, we have what the Whigs of that time called a “standing army” that consumes a great deal of the nation’s resources. <BR/><BR/>As a result, I fear, a lot of the Constitution’s provisions about the military—the clause about Congress declaring war, Second and Third Amendments, &c.—are either practically moot or honored mainly in the breach.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-28005369691838198032007-11-17T11:25:00.000-05:002007-11-17T11:25:00.000-05:00Oh I don't deny that some temperance is necessary,...Oh I don't deny that some temperance is necessary, but I don't think you can claim the third is tempered if it itself has the caveat. I believe he was talking about free speech at the time.<BR/><BR/>And it wasn't so much that I disagreed (although in some ways I do), it just seemed odd to mention the third as being tempered, as if we'd sometimes find it necessary to quarter troops in peace time.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, the quote was a soundbite on the radio, and I never found any other sources.<BR/><BR/>Also, I won't get in to the well-regulated militia phrase. That's an argument for another day (and one I've made on my own blog countless times).Robert S. Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208771657848284055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-13518326206356734192007-11-16T18:41:00.000-05:002007-11-16T18:41:00.000-05:00I’m not familiar with that quote from Sen. Schumer...I’m not familiar with that quote from Sen. Schumer, but certainly lawyers are well aware of the doctrine that no rights are absolute: there’s the "shouting ‘Fire!‘ in a crowded theater“ exception. <BR/><BR/>As the text shows, the Third Amendment is <I>already</I> tempered, in that it explicitly provides for quartering of troops in private homes during wartime if Congress creates such a law. That hasn’t really mattered since the U.S. of A. stopped fighting battles on its own soil over a century ago.<BR/><BR/>I’d argue that the First and Second Amendments are already tempered a little. The First has tortuous language that allowed Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire to maintain their established religion. The Second has the “well-regulated militia” phrase.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-51737685677241553732007-11-16T18:11:00.000-05:002007-11-16T18:11:00.000-05:00I'm reminded of a few months ago when I heard Sen....I'm reminded of a few months ago when I heard Sen. Schumer (of New York) say something like, "All the amendments have to be tempered; The first, second, third...."<BR/><BR/>And I had to wonder why ANYONE would want to temper the third.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure he wasn't really thinking about what each amendment was, but then you have to wonder why a senator wouldn't at least know the Bill of Rights.Robert S. Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208771657848284055noreply@blogger.com