Oh, yeah, it's this one:
"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."
Why on earth would that matter to anyone who's not 220 years old and hasn't had to deal with British soldiers seizing your bedroom for their use without your permission?
Well, there is an application, as it turns out, to the debate that still ensues over the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. You know, the one that sent liberals ballistic because our highest court ruled that corporations - as a collection of like-minded and like-purposed individuals - have speech rights like individuals do.
To find that link, scroll down to the comments section succeeding the article. And you'll see this from a Ted Bell:
Funny thing is it’s the third amendment that I use when arguing against Moonbats who rant about how bad it is for corporations to be considered an individual as laid out in Citizens United. I tell them to imagine you own a small business with a nice little store. One day you’re at work and a military officer walks in. He hands you an order signed by George W Bush (always their nemesis) saying that the Army is taking over your store and their [sic] are going to use it to house Army troops. Think Citizens United is wrong? Fine- your store has no constitutional rights and all you can do is hand the keys over to the Army officer, go to McDonalds and ask them for a job application.If corporations have no right to free speech, they have no right to prevent military seizure and occupation for the purpose of housing soldiers. Which flies directly in the face of the 3rd Amendment.
Long live the Third Amendment!
Unless the numbskulls on the Left are willing to argue that it too applies only to individuals and their homes, and the seizure of business establishments is acceptable. Which should make the ACLU a bit queasy and every liberal ashamed of himself.