Posted on 02/18/2024 6:57:09 AM PST by Twotone
This is when I discovered British citizens in Wellingborough being threatened with the possession of their £200,000 home to house illegals migrants.
Tories and Labour asleep at the wheel.
If you want Wellingborough protected, vote for me tomorrow!!
The title isn't a title as such.
“Tories and Labour asleep at the wheel”
They’re wide awake and directing this.
No Third Amendment, eh?
The UK has a Deep State, too.
The UK’s citizenry is paying for attempting to Brexit.
Note the changes to the country’s election laws since 2016.
The increasing use of those handy electronic voting machines/tabulators.
And the uncontrolled border.
Sound familiar?
What the UK doesn’t have, and desperately needs, is a Trump.
Thank you, Founding Fathers, for the Third Amendment!
Beat me to it!
Ben Habib did his part ran for Parliament and got 13 percent of the vote as the Reform UK candidate last Thursday.
Gives you an idea of how far gone things are.
Benyamin Naeem Habib was born on 7 June 1965 in Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan. His father is a Pakistani Punjabi and his mother is English and was born in Isleworth. He emigrated to the UK in 1979. Habib was a Conservative Party voter and donor.
> No Third Amendment, eh? <
The 3A wouldn’t help had this happened in the United States. The courts have ruled that the 3A applies to quartering soldiers, and soldiers only. So the government can quarter police officers, bums, illegals, etc. in your house and the 3A will not apply.
I mentioned police officers for this reason:
Take a look at post #9.
🙁
Taking people’s homes when they have lots of empty land and thousands of Tents ,LOL
Even the “People’s Army?”
The US version of conservatism is ‘a bit too rough at its edges’ for the UK*.
So now they’re getting tossed out of THEIR HOMES and on to the street, or wherever.
*and, for that matter, the NeverTrumpers also.
> Even the “People’s Army?” <
One of the (unsuccessful) arguments against the ruling in post #9 was that all the government has to do was rename the soldiers. Then the 3A wouldn’t apply.
“These aren’t soldiers we are going to quarter in your house. They are, ah, emergency relief workers.”
Ok, so how about the government takings clause and the right of just compensation.
Am I entitled to have the government buy my house when I am no longer a fee holder in fact, though the records show that I am? Am I entitled to damages because my privacy is invaded? I need to hire house cleaners? I need to take steps to protect my property from being seized because a government agent saw something in plain view?
Does the forth amendment apply when government agents are quartered in my house?
Can they avoid making it military by just putting FBI agents in place - they are everywhere else.
Just wondering for a friend...
Funny how they interpret things like the commerce clause and the general welfare clause as outrageously expansively as possible, but the Third (and Second) Amendments as absolutely narrowly as possible. In both cases to the benefit of government and the detriment of citizens.
> Ok, so how about the government takings clause and the right of just compensation. <
Valid points. The ruling in post #9 did not say the homeowner was helpless. It just said he cannot object using the 3A.
> Can they avoid making it military by just putting FBI agents in place - they are everywhere else. <
Another good point. One of the arguments made against this ruling was there were no police back in 1790. And the British used their soldiers as police. So “soldiers” mentioned in the 3A should include police.
That argument made sense. So naturally the federal judge rejected it.
Hubby and I were discussing just this subject yesterday. There was a NYTimes article discussing tiny houses and in talked about the fact that there are retired couples living alone in homes built for large families. The author bemoaned that fact as he compared it to young couples with several children who can’t afford a home.
The inference was that it was so unfair and the retired couple, who had worked hard and sacrificed to pay for the security of their paid-for home when they retired, should give that up for the younger families.
I don’t normally read the Times but came to the article from a link at Citizen Free Press.
“The Great Compression”
“Thanks to soaring housing prices, the era of the 400-square-foot subdivision house is upon us.”
(At the rate we are going, they are soon going to outlaw retired couples living in homes that are more than 1000 sq ft. Especially with all the illegal aliens with large families needing those homes.)
From the article:
“This has created a mismatched market in which members of the Baby Boom generation are disproportionately living in larger homes without children, while many millennial couples with children are cramped into smaller houses or in rental apartments, struggling to buy their first home.”
“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.”
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.