The only location enthroned as sacrosanct in our nation's Constitution is our front door. While many of those who shout "Freedom" and brandish guns tend to forget it, there is a subtle and powerful history to the Third Amendment:
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.
It's one of the few expressions of dissent embedded into our nation's laws that has almost never been examined by the Supreme Court. But it's one of those forgotten statements of pride and privacy that deserves to be dusted off and chipped into more Courthouse walls--or the foreheads of the pinheads who insist that they are "conservative."
The Third Amendment is one of those statements of rights that can only be understood in context. Encarta insists:
Under British rule, American colonists were forced to feed and house British soldiers deployed to help enforce colonial tax laws. The colonists resented this practice, and so banned it with this amendment. This amendment has been basically irrelevant since the end of the American Revolution (1775-1783).
And there aren't too many people today who wouldn't offer a serviceman a cup of coffee or even a weekend respite if needed. But there's a lot more to it.
The British government always assumed "Mi casa, su casa" The front door was irrelevant. But privacy has always been implied. From Doug Linder an elaboration:
The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
Whose front door? It depends on your party affiliation. The right wing is happy to insist that they can store as many guns as desired behind that door, but would have the government break it down to check what happens in your (not their) bedroom. The religious right broke down Terry Schaivo's (nursing home) front door for a decade and sees no barrier in the front door of your doctor's office.
And in Cambridge this week, Skip Gates' front door became a symbol of right and wrong. Officer Crowley walked through it, found out he was in a world of hurt, and then coaxed Gates to walk back out so he could arrest him.
Where are our literal and figurative front doors? If the average right wing guy at the 7/11 were asked what he'd do if an officer crashed through his front door, he'd probably mumble something about grabbing a gun. Can this debate be reframed?