[bpodgursky]

Free speech rights are a stretch here. I wonder if you could make a viable case for the 3rd amendment though (to my knowledge it has never been done).

Strictly interpreted, the 3rd amendment prevents the government from being able to force homeowners to quarter soldiers. If you think about the real intent of the bill though, it's obvious that the mindset is "you are free to use your own house without government interference."

Realize that at the time, HUGE numbers of homeowners informally had a room or two for boarders to supplement their income. It would have been considered ridiculous at the time for the government to say you couldn't lend a room out for money, which is probably why this interpretation was not formally codified.

It's a stretch, but amendments have been interpreted in more creative ways to accomplish personal-freedom goals (think, right to privacy -- interpreted as an implied constitutional right, but not mentioned anywhere).

[snappy173]

>Strictly interpreted, the 3rd amendment prevents the government from being able to force homeowners to quarter soldiers. If you think about the real intent of the bill though, it's obvious that the mindset is "you are free to use your own house without government interference."

that's a real stretch. that would nullify all zoning ...

[HarryHirsch]

It is a stretch. If the Founding Fathers had meant to say you are free to use your property without government interference they would have done that.

They had tanneries then, and there is more than a gradual difference between operating a tannery and quartering a bunch of soldiers in someone's house. One interferes with the life of the householder. The other interferes mostly with the life of the neighbours.

[bpodgursky]

Maybe? But then again, the 2nd amendment doesn't allow nuclear weapons, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Would be easy to interpret it as, the right to use residential properties for lodging purposes (hotel, apartments, B&Bs) cannot be violated, without letting you set up industrial operations.

[afarrell]

What does "easy" mean here? It is easy to say, "the third amendment really means that A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Amendments." In fact I just did. However, to actually believe that original meaning of the third amendment as believed by the people who negotiated it was to prohibit the federal government from banning boarding houses strains credulity. It similarly strains credulity to believe that those who negotiated the 15th amendment had a genuine meeting of minds over their belief that the due process clause implied that states and municipalities could not regulate boarding houses.

Dot get me wrong: If it wasn't for Airbnb I probably wouldn't be married and I too share a geeky desire to see the 3rd amendment used in anger.

[int_19h]

Well, I doubt that the people who wrote the Commerce Clause would have dreamed up Wickard v. Filburn in their worst nightmare, either, yet here we are. So, at this point, the majority of federal laws are based on an interpretation of the Constitution that strains credulity far more.

[bunderbunder]

"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."

I think it'd be safe to say that Airbnb would have a tough row to hoe trying to base their case on the Third Amendment.

[Spooky23]

I think the 3rd amendment is about as clear as it gets. Unlikely.