# Talk:Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

The 23:14, 8 February 2011 Some jerk on the Internet version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand a stub--Wing (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the article says "private homes".  The text of the Constitution says "any house".  Is there a Supreme Court ruling which uses the term "private home"?  I could interpret "any house" far more widely (apartment house, warehouse, outhouse, opera house).  There may be a fair housing ruling from the 1960s that has such a limit, but I would like a cite.    Randall Bart    Talk   03:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The case referenced in the article, Engblom v. Carey, is the only case to interpret the Third Amendment, and it does interpret the language regarding "private homes" as being consistent with how the term is used in Fourth Amendment cases, which would mean it includes any property "recognized and permitted by society as founded on lawful occupation or possession with a legal right to exclude others" -- this includes apartments and hotel rooms.
The case is a 2nd Circuit decision; since it's the only circuit decision on point, it would be highly persuasive in other circuits, but it is legally only binding in the 2nd Circuit.
I'll leave it to you or other editors to decide if the article needs any further revision to clarify this point. Hartboy (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The lead also says "...which had allowed the British Army to lodge soldiers in public buildings." Shouldn't this also include private homes? It was the private homes that people were most infuriated about.

Seriously, this is getting extremely stupid. Certain Wikipedia editors are using the {{citation needed}} as a crutch rather than actually finding sources to cite. It's getting ridiculous. Anyone able to access this site is able to look up a good source for the two {{citation needed}}s in the middle of the article. I'm going to time how long it takes for me to find the citations. I'm starting at 11:15AM. --68.230.167.244 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There, 2 citations in 10 minutes. --68.230.167.244 (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we add a 'see also' to reference the Quartering Acts or Quartering in Time of War for historical context?Z192.122.237.11 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC). 

I don't see why not. Seems practical.--JayJasper (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done--JayJasper (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm  http://minutemennews.com/2013/07/police-seize-home-arrest-owners-to-gain-tactical-advantage-investigating-neighbors/ Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll probably try in the coming weeks to bring this article to Good Article status. I thought I'd start by asking here if any longtime editors of this article have input--any changes you particularly want to see? Thanks to all who have worked on this one before me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comparing the current text to some other encyclopedia articles, I think this is actually ready to nominate for GA. I've expanded the discussion of background a bit, improved the citation, and made some other changes, but there's simply not much to be said about the amendment. I'm going to nominate now, but input is obviously still welcome if any article watchers have suggestions. Cheers to all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Third Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wehwalt (talk · contribs) 23:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I've looked it over.  A few comments, but generally this seems to meet the grade:

Lede
"prohibits, in peacetime or wartime, the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent. " Is that really what it says?  I agree on the peacetime bit, but in time of war, it seems to say that Congress can prescribe for it.
You're quite right; I'm not sure if I inherited this sentence and failed to fix it or simply blundered in its writing. Does this phrasing seem better? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Background
If at all possible, diminish the frequency of use of the word "quartering" in the first paragraph and "constitution" in the second.
Cut one of each. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposal and ratification
There seems to be a disconnect between the first and the second sentences of this section.  We have Madison rummaging through books for various rights, then we have several "revisions" (is this the proper AmerEng term?) of the amendment.  What is missing is a sentence about Madison writing the amendment.
I've added slightly more here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Not needed at the GA level but if you were to bring this to FAC I'd expect to see some discussion of the ratification debates, if the 3rd played any part in that, or at least if there was opposition to the 3rd's ratification and what it was based on if so.
I haven't found anything about opposition to the 3rd specifically, but I'll keep my eyes open. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Judicial
"There have been no major Supreme Court cases concerning violations of the Third Amendment, and as of 2009, no Supreme Court decision has used the amendment as its primary basis" Cannot this be simplified?
Done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
"Justice William O. Douglas cited the amendment as a partial basis " Perhaps "cited the amendment, with others in the Bill of Rights, as a partial basis".  He had a whole laundry list as I recall.
Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Case law
What's the difference between judicial and case law?
Fair point--removing unneeded subheader. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I would add a sentence to your discussion of Engblom stating that despite the finding, the case was dismissed on remand, basically because there was so little case law on the 3rd, that the state officials couldn't have known they were violating it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Let me know if you think these edits cover the points above, and thanks for all the solid suggestions.  -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

They're fine.  Promoting momentarily.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This article has been promoted to GA.  I find it meets the criteria (sorry about no fancy template).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears that at some point in the history of periodic vandalism of this article, some images were lost when the vandalism was reverted.  I have restored them while keeping the vandalism removed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection has been requested, preferably for months, because this article seems to be a target for stupid vandalism every few weeks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I registered an account here because I noticed this, so I can't really fix it since the article seems to be only editable by users who are 'automatically confirmed':
The section "Judicial Interpretation" seems to be suffering from a good deal of copy/paste artifacts. These include:

Duplicated information between paragraphs 1 and 2, and paragraphs 4 and 5.
Paragraph 2 ends in the middle of a sentence
Paragraph 5 contains what seems to be a copy/paste artifact at a point similar to the ending of paragraph 2:
"Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the The Third Amendment has been invoked in a few instances as helping establish..."
Note that paragraph 3 contains unique information and probably should not be deleted.
Asattely (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In the 'Judicial interpretation' section, the first and second (incomplete) paragraphs are repeated after the 3rd paragraph, although the 2nd is apparently completed there.
Naterade21 (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. -- Calidum 06:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Amendment III  

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house (property), without the consent of the owner (property rights), nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Narrowest interpretation only mentions soldiers.  Slightly (1 degree) broader interpretation (annotated) shows it to be about property rights.  It can not be denied property rights does exists.
Owners right's can not be superceded, not even in time of war (national emergency), except in a manner prescribed by law (only in times of national emergency).
73.118.175.67 (talk) Tae Hyun Song 73.118.175.67 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)