[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.