The Third Right
Forced housing, squatters, and how a forgotten amendment may be the answer
It is time to don your stylish-yet-functional tin-foil hats, good people. Not due to us talking ‘deep state’ or ‘ancient aliens’ or ‘flat Earth,’ or anything so esoteric.
No-no, you’ll need your headgear because everything outside of mainstream-thought is considered “Conspiracy!” these days. Those self-appointed arbiters, of all things worthy-of-consideration, say so… thus it simply must be true.
Well, guess what? I’m going ‘outside.’
So prepare yourselves, friends and friendly strangers, for I am about to unleash my highly speculative, ‘full-strength crazy’ vibe, and drive that thing wildly off-road. Fasten your safety buckles - the ride could get bumpy from here…
Thank you for your continued support, and - if not already a subscriber - join me as we build a unique Substack subculture of information, entertainment, and enlightenment.
Founding Foresights
When looking back at America’s foundational documents, I am always astonished at the prescience those Founding Fathers possessed. The wisdom it took to ascertain how the words they wrote could be interpreted - over the years and decades and even centuries - has allowed said-words to resonate to this very day.
Of those documents, the ‘Bill of Rights’ (a collection of ten amendments to the at-the-time-recently ratified constitution) was without question one of the most important collection-of-words ever written. The legal acknowledgement of basic natural rights - individual rights - and government’s responsibility to protect those rights, is unlike anything ever created before or since.
With that noted, to modern readers one of those amendments has not aged as well as the other nine. While obviously considered important when it was written, even the strictest of Originalists oft question the need for it in modern times. It is seldom-to-never referenced in legal cases, considered antiquated in the scope of today’s America.
I am discussing the Third Amendment, and it is written as such…
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.
Due to British actions during the American Revolution this law was vital when written, but is now largely viewed as a missive from an age long passed. Even a cursory reading makes it pretty clear that it is one which has outlived its usefulness, and should be rendered obsolete.
Or should it? Enter Eric Adams, mayor of NYC, who back in June of last year floated a curious idea…
New York City Mayor Eric Adams on Monday said regular New Yorkers should house the busloads of illegal aliens arriving in The City. Adams said he wants to house the illegals in private residences.
This story - which at the time inspired me to drop a video-short - appeared on the surface to be an attempt at political suicide. To even try to implement a forced-housing solution, at a time New Yorkers were already getting fed-up with the influx of illegal immigrants, seemed like madness; as such, the idea was soon quietly squashed.
But Globalist Authority in NYC and elsewhere were not done yet - here come the ‘squatters’…
Homeowners who go on vacation or a business trip, even for just a week, are returning to find their houses overtaken by trespassers who fraudulently claim a right to be there. It’s happening to tens of thousands of homeowners from New York City to Atlanta to Los Angeles.
“Tens of thousands.” Can you imagine?
The ‘Migrant’ Factor
The issue appears to be exacerbated by the ‘open borders’ policies of the current administration, with millions of illegal invaders migrants flooding our streets, and untold numbers of them availing themselves of the ‘squatter’ loophole. Even full-Leftist mayors like the aforementioned Adams are speaking against the current border policies, demanding the Feds do something to curtail the influx.
Oh, and speaking of the illegals…
A Venezuelan migrant has gone viral after he posted a video to social media that explained how illegal immigrants can take advantage of squatting laws and stay in American homes.
The ever-erudite
recently dropped a sizzling Substack about the scourge of squatting (for deeper understanding, I strongly recommend giving it a read); this inspired me to ruminate further on the topic, and expand upon something I have explored previously.While our Constitution has private-property protections firmly embedded into it, the frequent abuses of ‘eminent domain’ in recent years have served to chip away at those rights. The ‘greater good’ argument, combined with politically-driven faux-altruism, have made these and other violations much easier to justify, thinning out those rights even further.
Indeed, there have been a variety of efforts to dilute the Constitution, many of which achieving various levels of success; such-efforts are met with much-more resistance, however, when you bring the ‘Bill of Rights,’ into the equation. Those ten amendments, held by many as near-sacred, tend to withstand Authoritarian assaults to a greater degree than the rest of the Constitution.
Which Psaki-bombs us to the Third Amendment: Is it possible that this oft-ignored law could protect citizens from forced housing, or from those claiming squatter’s rights, whether those individuals are here illegally… or not? The prospects are tantalizing, and depend entirely on interpreting the word ‘soldier.’
Supreme Precedents
Does ‘soldier’ exclusively mean an actual member of a recognized military - foreign or domestic - or can it be expanded to include any agent of any government entity. If the latter, can that be further stretched to include any foreign national, especially one which is here illegally?
And let us be real; how do we know that an illegal is not a ‘foreign soldier?’ I mean, you don’t really believe they are all just poor, downtrodden victims innocently chasing that elusive America Dream™… now do you?
Goodness, I hope you don’t.
Let us take this further: If a ‘bill of right’ prevents the forced-housing of any ‘soldier’… would that not, by rational deduction, also include any unwanted occupant? Because if you have a squatter on your property that you want gone, and the government protects their ‘right’ to stay there… is that not a degree of ‘forced housing?
See where I am going with this? (I warned you in the beginning that I was going ‘off-road’.)
I know, on the surface these seem like absurd extensions, but there have certainly been examples of such absurdities. Indeed, throughout American history creative interpretations of our Constitution have lead to some interesting conclusions; the Fourteenth Amendment alone has been broadly expanded well beyond its original intent, leading to precedent-establishing - and occasionally questionable - decisions.
So, again - by modern interpretation - what is the definition of ‘soldier’ when the concept is transferred from the 1780s to the 2020s? The key factors seem to be ‘the times’ in which a decision is rendered… and those serving on the court during said-times. And with the justices we currently have now?
As I said above… tantalizing.
To make that point further, let us review why the third amendment was demanded by the States in the first place…
After the Boston Tea Party, the Quartering Act of 1774 was enacted. As one of the Intolerable Acts that pushed the colonies toward revolution, it authorized British troops to be housed wherever necessary, including in private homes.
“To be housed wherever necessary”… sound at all familiar?
Of course, this is all likely moot. States are already starting to push back with laws protecting private home-owners, and while there are anti-Liberty politicians fighting against those laws (and against their own constituents - how they can get re-and-reelected without creative vote-counting is highly suspect), it is doubtful that this practice will endure for much longer.
Still, it is interesting to speculate: If - for whatever reason - these violations continue, is it possible the most obscure amendment of our revered ‘Bill of Rights’ could finally justify why the Founders thought it was important enough to enshrine for generations to come?
Only time - and circumstances - will be able to tell that tale…
Help support my work - sub for free or become a paid Member! Members get an exclusive weekly email, plus more goodies! Right now it’s only $37 a year, 37% off the monthly rate!
Article mentioned above, by Christopher Cook…
Notes…
-- ‘Psaki-bomb’: to return to a previous point, i.e. ‘circle back’
-- This is a rewrite of an article first published on June 12, 2023 ; I chose to update it, based on Christopher Cook’s article (see above), and the recent attention on the red herring otherwise known as “squatter’s rights.”
-- Unless otherwise credited, all images were created by the author, using Substack’s AI Image Generator.
Thank you for the food for thought, Stone, and for the kind words.
I fear the weak link in all this might be the portion of the 3rd Amendment that reads, “but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
As we have seen, emergency powers are prescribed by law, and apparently they can do anything they wish once they declare an “emergency.”
I have heard that the real motive behind the illegal invasion, squatting epidemic, increasing violence and lawlessness, constant threat of disease and nuclear threat etc etc etc is to drive the American people to the point where we will want and cry out for martial law. We will be ready to trade liberty and freedom for safety and security.