It seems reasonable that the intent of the Third Amendment was not limited to providing troops with room and board, but also included a right to be free in their own homes from spying and government surveillance. If they would have foreknowledge of modern “bugging” capabilities, as well as the continuous centralized listening of Alexa, Siri, Android phones, Nest thermostats, internet connected cameras, and numerous other modern monitoring devices, they might have written the Third Amendment somewhat differently.
Protect the Constitution
Maybe if the legislature promised to appoint him to the US Senate, he’d go for it? I know he says he likes “running” the state, and the only thing US Senators run for is an office (not if we repeal the ‘not absolute’ 17th). And a state-level appointment to the US Senate would get him out of NH not long after which they could recall him and replace him with someone less progressive.
Liberticidal leftists have also been wearing out their thesaurus conjuring up harmless descriptions of how these things work. Instead of talking about how an innocent person’s means of self-defense and personal property is to be taken at gunpoint. They talk about how these ‘temporarily’ separate people from their guns or keep guns out of the hands of individuals perceived as a danger to themselves and others.
If the former federal union and its Philadelphia Constitution has any authority today that was ultimately ratified, it would be under article 1 whereby Congress is charged with protecting the border from invasion. Even if contemporary congressmen are aware of their duties (I doubt most congressmen have even read the, very brief, Constitution), such a bunch of elected bureaucrats will not act.
When confronted with these arguments, the critics almost always retreat with the statement that, “At best, we’ll waste a lot of time and money to create an amendment that the government will ignore just like it does the rest of the constitution.” When the critics say that, they are asserting that our constitution is already dead, and we are no long a republic.
Education is key to success. That involves educating the people about the goals and the state legislators, who will consider and vote on the initiative. From personal experience, I contacted each of my state representatives and heard back from a few. One, Lisa Bunker, responded but did not understand the process as she said she could not support the plan because it would open Pandora’s Box.
As the financial guys say: Past performance is the best predictor of future behavior. So, what have the Oath Keepers done in the past? They’ve defended the property rights of private citizens, protested an election that half of America thinks was stolen and accused Biden of being a Chinese puppet. Stewart Rhodes must have learned a thing or two about the Constitution at Yale Law. All of his organization’s past activities have been entirely consistent with the Constitution — freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, property rights, and government by the people
It should also be noted that the “establishment” of religion, prohibited by the First Amendment, only refers to compelling people to belong to a state-sanctioned church. Activist judges have perverted the concept and have illegally (jurists violate law when trampling the Constitution) expanded the prohibition far beyond its true meaning. Thus are we told that school prayer is verboten and the Ten Commandments mayn’t be displayed at a courthouse.
One of the newest decrees has been that property owners that rent homes or apartments cannot evict tenants. There has been no law passed, only a decree from Joe Bribe’em through the CDC. It is difficult to imagine a worse abrogation than private property being confiscated by the government without compensation.
As usual, California is at the forefront of societal evolution. They are way ahead of the rest of us rubes on this whole dignity thing. They’re already discussing codifying it into state laws and regulations. The California legislature is currently working on a law to provide menstrual products to boys at public schools.
In recognition of this abuse, conservative voices are attempting a solution to the problem by virtue of a Convention of States. This is another example of the brilliance of the founders, in that they anticipated the need for such a course correction someday, and included it in Article V.