"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."
Do we really need to demoralise our troops with this archaic Constitutional amendment? Opinions please.
2006-08-21 17:36:44 · 9 answers · asked by Ѕємι~Мαđ ŠçїєŋŧιѕТ 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
While I expected vitriol, I wasn't exactly expecting to be taken so seriously. My point is that we talk about every other article in the Bill of Rights, but this one never comes up. It would be interesting to find out how many people actually know what it says.
Another point that I bring up is what does it mean to support our troops? It seems to be an empty phrase these days as it requires no action. I thought that I'd spice up that concept with this question.
By the way, I know the context, I'm not THAT stupid, and I don't appreciate being insulted (like a couple of answers did). Of course the idea of repeal is absurd. Why bother going through the trouble? I just simply think that if the amendment didn't existed, it wouldn't be as useful as it was over 200 years ago. Too much bad PR.
I do appreciate the non-insulting answers, despite the tone. Thanks for the opinions.
2006-08-21 23:30:51 · update #1
What possible reason can there be to forcefully house troops in private homes during times of peace?
And during times of war, congress can pass laws that establish the terms (subject to 5th Amendment just compensation) to allow it. So, if the situation arises where it is necessary, and Congress declares war, then Congress can do it without repealing the amendment.
But I still can't imagine any situation, not during war time, that would justify requiring this without the owner's consent.
2006-08-21 17:42:15 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a ten year military veteran and a veteran of 41 years total service in active and reserve forces I say it never affected my morale because it was never a factor in any way in my life.
I say leave the Bill of Rights alone. If you were a homeowner would you like your house to be commandeered to quarter troops?
I think the amendment has value and I'd say leave the Constitution alone.
It has served us well for a couple of hundred years.
2006-08-21 17:45:44 · answer #2 · answered by Warren D 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think you understand the idea behind that amendment. It was written because British troops demanded lodging and stole colonist possessions during the Revolutionary Wars. It's designed to protect citizens against the military. It doesn't demoralize the armed forces in any way, just restricts them minimally. To repeal it would be unnecessary.
2006-08-21 17:44:24 · answer #3 · answered by Travis 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How does it de-moralize our troops? I've never heard one complain of it. It's not archaic - it prevents the government from ordering us to take soldiers into our homes. Yes, it has historical background, but it's a good provision for the future.
2006-08-21 17:41:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is a very stupid question, i think you need to put that amendment into context before you ask things like that.
2006-08-21 17:46:56 · answer #5 · answered by Sammy 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i dont want any more amendments repealed the govt is already trying to take the rest away...
2006-08-21 18:04:52 · answer #6 · answered by WeezyBaby 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So, you want to change the Constitution do you? You sound just like someone up in the White House that's trying to do the same thing. Are you related or are you like him just an a**hole in the making..........
2006-08-21 18:07:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
do you want the soldiers to come and take over your house? i know i dont
2006-08-21 17:42:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How on earth could you demoralize them by NOT keeping it?!?!
2006-08-21 17:42:36 · answer #9 · answered by Craig D 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋