Amendment 3

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.

____________________________________________________________

This amendment means that the government can not force you to house a solider in your house during war or during peace. Although some may see it has a noble deed to house a solider who is fighting for them in their house, especially if the war is at home, but others see it as the governments way of intimidating you, and watching you.

____________________________________________________________

10/5/2009

Engblom v. Carey was a 1982 court case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It is chiefly notable for being the only significant court decision based on a direct challenge under the third amendment of the Constitution.

The case was initiated by a 1979 strike by New York State correction officers. While the officers were on strike, some of their duties were performed by National Guardsmen who were activated. At Mid-Orange Correctional Facility (and other facilities) striking employees were evicted from employee housing which was then used to house some of the National Guard. Two of the evicted officers at Mid-Orange C.F., Marianne E. Engblom and Charles E. Palmer, subsequently filed suit against the state of New York and its governor, Hugh L. Carey.

The decision, rendered on May 3, 1982, established that the National Guardsmen legally qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment, that the amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, and that the protection of this amendment extends beyond home owners. The majority stated that the officers' occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and was protected under the Third Amendment. There was a minority dissent which stated the officers' occupancy was covered under the lesser protection of employee housing and held that the special circumstances of residency on prison grounds superseded Third Amendment protection. The case was remanded to district court where it was decided in the defendants' favor again, due to the principle that as agents of the state, the defendants were covered by a qualified immunity unless they were knowingly acting illegally. In the absence of previous precedents on this issue, the standard of knowing illegality was not met.

http://www.indopedia.org/Engblom_v._Carey.html

Thoughts:

I do not think that kicking the correction officers out of their housing at the facility and letting the National Guard live their was against the 3rd amendment. The correction officers were on strike and therefor were not doing their job, The correctional facility needed people to keep the inmates in line, so they brought the national guard in, making them the new "employees" The housing was for the employees, it just so happens the new employees were part of the national guard.

____________________________________________________________