The ban on quartering soldiers in civilian homes without consent is an illustration of the fact that
A.
the Bill of Rights required Congress to elaborate.
B.
the Bill of Rights depended heavily on the compliance of states.
C.
the Bill of Rights was written from experience, not ingenious foresight.
D.
the Bill of Rights spoke on its own and did not need Supreme Court interpretation.
This question confuses me because im not quite sure what its asking for. I don't think its A. I feel like it could be B or D... maybe C?
The answer is c
do the h double t, p, s, this thing :, two of these /, quizlet.com, one of these /
then paste this
360984637/practice-for-ap-exam-mid-semester-exam-flash-cards/
It's one of those choices.
"The Third Amendment, or Amendment III of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that prohibits soldiers from temporarily residing in private homes during peace time without getting the permission and consent of the owner.
Third Amendment - Kids | Laws.com
https://kids.laws.com/third-amendment
To determine the correct answer to this question, let's break down the options and know the significance of the ban on quartering soldiers in civilian homes without consent.
A. The Bill of Rights required Congress to elaborate: This option suggests that the ban on quartering soldiers required further clarification or explanation by Congress. However, the ban on quartering soldiers is a clear and straightforward provision, and it didn't necessitate elaboration from Congress. Therefore, option A is not the correct answer.
B. The Bill of Rights depended heavily on the compliance of states: This option points to the fact that the effectiveness of the Bill of Rights relied on the willingness of states to adhere to its principles. In the case of the ban on quartering soldiers, it was an issue of federal law enforcement, so the compliance of states is not directly relevant. Therefore, option B is not the correct answer.
C. The Bill of Rights was written from experience, not ingenious foresight: This option suggests that the authors of the Bill of Rights drew upon practical experience, rather than simply relying on their intuitive predictions of how things would unfold. While this assertion may be accurate, it doesn't directly relate to the ban on quartering soldiers. Therefore, option C is not the correct answer.
D. The Bill of Rights spoke on its own and did not need Supreme Court interpretation: This option suggests that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were self-explanatory and did not require interpretation by the Supreme Court. In the case of the ban on quartering soldiers, its meaning could be understood without the need for extensive interpretation. Therefore, option D is the correct answer.
In conclusion, the correct answer is D. The ban on quartering soldiers in civilian homes without consent did not require Supreme Court interpretation as its meaning was clear and didn't necessitate further clarification.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/third_amendment
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
Read through all the parts that begin with the words "He has..."
("He" was King George.)
OK, now -- decide.