Return to Question

Consider the 3rd 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.

Suppose now a Legislature (State of National) passes this law:

Any soldier can at any time commandeer any dwelling for himself or any other soldier regardless of the objections of the owner.

Does this contradict the 3rd?

After all, the amendment says "in a manner to be prescribed by law" and the law does prescribe the manner.

PS. The relevant part is not "State" vs "Federal", but whether a law that makes a constitutional clause effectively null and void would be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

PPS. I am not a lawyer, and English is not my native language, so I am at a double jeopardy trying to communicate my question. Please be patient.

Consider the 3rd 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.

Suppose now that the US Congress were to pass this law:

Any soldier can at any time commandeer any dwelling for himself or any other soldier regardless of the objections of the owner.

Does this contradict the 3rd?

After all, the amendment says "in a manner to be prescribed by law" and the law does prescribe the manner.

PS. The relevant part is not "State" vs "Federal", but whether a law that makes a constitutional clause effectively null and void would be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

PPS. I am not a lawyer, and English is not my native language, so I am at a double jeopardy trying to communicate my question. Please be patient.