Amendment III of the Camian Constitution
Amendment III of the Camian Constitution was a passage added in 1715 to Camian constitutional laws, restricting military recruitment to volunteers, unless explicitly permitted by legislation.
Text
The original text of the amendment reads as follows:
And becauſe bye diuers meens in contradiſtinctione to the cuſtoms of this Plaſe, and seuerally unlawfull Actes and Praetenſes, the Citizens of Camia haue been ignominiuſley preſsed in longe and unendinge Seruiſes unto the Themicleſian Crowne, under no Guaranty of Payement, under the Counſol of His eiuil and wicked Miniſters, it is reſolued that the Kinge and his Heyres and Succeſsors shall haue no Power to compele and caus Maryns to enter into His naual Seruiſe or elles other Seruiſe of Regiments.
Context
The historical context, as is generally agreed in academic circles, is that the Themiclesian government had authorized its Admiralty Department to recruit a class of naval personnel known as "passengers" (冗, nunk), by force if necessary. As passengers did not require maritime experience, the Themiclesian naval authorities took the position that anyone could be recruited and simply abducted Camians into the fleet. Around 1680, the Themiclesian government expanded upon this practice and established entire battalions made of passengers, even though they were deployed to the interior to fight against Hallian forces and nowhere near the fleet. This forcible recruitment created enormous consternation in Camia's prosperous coastal towns.
After Camia's independence and the establishment of a separate kingdom, the Royal Charter of 1710 was granted as a settlement of powers between a royal authority and the autonomy of various cities. The abuses of naval recruitment were quickly recalled and explicitly barred in amendments to the Charter, parts of which eventually became the Camian Constitution.
Meaning
Restrictive terms which are binding on the King of Camia and his heirs and successors are generally agreed to remain in effect over the executive branch led by the President of Camia in modern practice. This means that the President may not compel or cause marines to enter into the naval service, or any other service, in the absence of an enabling law. Currently, such a law is not in effect, but the War Measures Act of 1911 has been interpreted to fulfil the requirements of Amendment III, whenever it is declared operational.
The meaning of the word "marines" or "Maryns" in the original text has been altered through the interpretive history of this law. In the 18th century, the term was taken narrowly to mean naval personnel that were not sailors. In this way, Nam v. Rex 1770 was resolved with a ruling agianst the Admiralty that bakers and butter-makers may not be ordered to sell their products to the Navy before doing business with the public, because this would effectively put them under naval service when it was not authorized by a law. But in a per curiam delivered by Quintas J. in Michaelmas 1823 on a different subject, he asserted that the word "Maryns" must be understood thematically, that is, anyone put in a servile capacity not envisioned by the law:
And as the letter of the law forbids the enlistment of marines and their subsequent employment as line regiments of foot, so the meaning of the law too forbids the mutation of bakers as provosts or tanners as sentries. For if this meaning be not embraced, nothing will prevent the compulsion of any man into any service, as long as their names and titles may be altered, viz. the Government put a man who never before saw a sea into naval service saying, lo, thou art a sailor. The law forbids the putting into service by compulsion, unless another law permit it, and even then the Government may not alter names and titles to feign obedience to the law.
However, this celebrated law came under question as Camia planned to expand its navy in the 1840s, in response to several projects by Themiclesia to establish and assist nations in the Subcontinent hostile to Camia. The restriction of Amendment III was interpreted by the Acker government to mean that the navy may only recruit from merchant sailors, who could not be fielded as land units like the Themiclesians have done in the 1600s. Ironically, the Acker government's solution was precisely what Quintas J. had cautioned against: by changing the Shinasthana name for the planned naval infantry unit, it was separated from the Navy and thus not subject to the restriction of naval recruitment under Amendment III.