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.
I have stated repeatedly that I do not approve of the living Constitution argument being used as an excuse to circumvent the Constitution. I am, however, open to interpretation of the words an intents of the document. While the third amendment does not seem to target the schools, there can be issues with a deeper intent.
Although I frequently refer to teachers as soldiers in the front lines of the war on education, I'm fairly confident that they do not fit the meaning intended by the Constitution. Despite the difference, some questions need to be answered. Can the third amendment be applied to soldier-like characteristics outside of the military?
Teachers are government workers who oppress children. They present themselves as stern authority figures. They push children to cooperate by making them feel threatened. Ultimately, they push a culture of fear.
The reasons behind our decision not to allow soldiers to take over your home is not that different from having teachers quartered in your home. Of course, that brings up another question regarding interpretation. Can you remove children from their homes in order to circumvent the Constitution's prohibition of taking quarters? While you could argue that this is a bit of a stretch, it has not been settled.
Let's put this another way. Children are removed from their homes and forced into government-run institutions. A significant portion of their childhood has them essentially living against their will in these facilities. Oppressive government forces take control over the children in this environment. While it's not a literal violation, what we are doing is really not that different from what the third amendment prohibits.
If you took this argument to the Supreme Court right now, you would lose unanimously. Judges are among the many professions that require proof of support for our schools. If you could find a more neutral court that believes in establishing constitutionality more than blind loyalty to our schools' narrative, things could get a little more interesting. Because the argument relies on two uncertain interpretations, it would be difficult to win over a majority of justices, but it would not be unanimous either.
No comments:
Post a Comment