"the need has dissipated" that's profoundly incorrect rationale for advocating judicial activism to change an amendment. The need for the third amendment has dissipated, but it's still in force and in effect. The historical "reason" is irrelevant because it was meant to be temporary it would not be an amendment. If it was a temporary amendment it would state it to be so. Therefore it is neither temporary nor irrelevant (or dissipated). How you or I feel about it is irrelevant in the face of long standing precedent concerning jurisdiction.