Third Amendment

[Michael McConnell]

Just as, during WW II, the US could attack the persons and property of all
persons residing in Germany, whether or not they were making war against the
United States (indeed, even if they were actively supporting the
resistance). The question is not whether the individual is making war, but
whether he or she resides in a place that is making war against the United
States.

Michael W. McConnell
University of Utah College of Law
332 S. 1400 East Room 102
Salt Lake City, UT 84112


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:SLevinson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 7:50 AM
> To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Third Amendment
>
>
> Michael McConnell writes:
>
> >Contrary to Sandy Levinson, I do not think it would be odd
> to say that
> >President Lincoln could seize the "property" of Southern
> slaveholders who
> >were making war against the United States....
>
> But, of course, the Proclamation seized the property (I'm not sure why
> Michael puts scare quotes around the term, since slaves were surely
> property under the positive law of the United States of the time) of
> persons who by no plausible account "were making war against
> the United
> States" other than by residing in states that had purportedly seceded.
> This is one of the arguments leveled by former Justice Curtis
> against the
> constitutionality of the Proclamation.
>
> sandy
>