First Amendment To Lease This First: Fill & Download for Free

So, you're basically asking why we don't limit the Second Amendment only to the weapons technology that was widely adopted as of the late 18th Century when the 2A was written?Sure. Sounds like a fine idea. In fact, let’s do it to all the rights enumerated in the first 10 Amendments:Freedom of speech or the press only applies to actual speaking or to print media, not to any form of amplified public address, broadcast or digital media as these technologies didn’t exist until at least the 1830s with the telegraph. The U.S. Government will have the power to criminalize any content spoken into an amplification system, broadcast over the airwaves or through wired networks, or posted online, for any reason, including that it’s disparaging to the US or to any political figure thereof.Troops can be quartered by order of the government in timeshares, corporate-owned residential properties, any property subject to an ownership contract such as an HOA, and on any other property subject to an ownership or tenancy arrangement other than a simple rent/lease arrangement or outright individual ownership, as these more complex contractual arrangements were not in practice as of ratification.Searches and seizures of anything belonging to you that is of a type that didn’t exist in 1791 cannot, by definition, be unlawful. Without any warrant, police can search your phone, your computer, and any other digital device, as well as any form of transportation that doesn’t run on hay and oats, and any building requiring technology for its basic structure that did not exist in 1791, including high-rise towers, tension-slab foundations etc.Videotaped interrogations in which you are compelled under threat of pain or injury to confess to a crime are admissible, as is any other compulsion to give information in a form that didn’t exist in colonial North America, including being forced at the point of a semi-automatic weapon to type your confession into a computer and use a thumbprint scanner to authenticate it.The electric chair, gas chamber and lethal injection cannot, by definition, be cruel and unusual punishment regardless of how they’re administered, because they didn’t exist until after 1791. For that matter, we can get an execution over with very quickly by just repurposing a steam catapult from an aircraft carrier to fling people at high speed into a solid wall (credit to George Carlin for that one).No other action, power or freedom of the States and the People can be recognized and protected as a right unless it was asserted as being such in legal writings prior to 1791. As such, all unenumerated putative rights currently being debated as to their existence and extent, including asserted rights to abortion, gay marriage, and healthcare, definitely do not exist.Sound like a country you want to live in? No? Me neither. The Constitution and its Amendments should be interpreted based on the meaning of the words used as of when they were written, but they are applicable within the scope of that meaning to any more modern development of technology, economics or social science that falls within their scope.You are likely very wary of anyone who says you have no right of free speech, privacy or protections from government search or seizure in the digital realm, and for good reason. This kind of argument about the Second Amendment is no different; the right still exists even as technology improves the devices under scope of protection. You cannot assert that one Amendment is somehow inherently limited in its application because it’s a right you don’t like and don’t care about, if you’re not willing to have that same argument be readily applicable to the rights you do like.I will leave you with this erudite passage from a scholar far more learned than I:Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.~ Antonin Scalia, Opinion of the Court, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290), 478 F. 3d 370

Congress shall make no law, nor shall any executive action or order be implemented, empowering any institution or instrument of local, state or federal government, or of any agents thereof, or of any individual, to act in any way that may be deemed as an act of aggression, or to otherwise be the initiate of any act of force.1. Aggression is hereby defined as the initiation of any act that imposes any will onto any individual citizen of these United States, in any way that might limit the complete liberty of that individual, in as much as exercising of that liberty also cannot be defined as an act of aggression against another.2. All private ownership shall be considered sacrosanct, and any attempt to limit, usurp, make claim to, regulate or in any way impose any will upon the property or mechanism of such ownership shall be considered an aggressive act of force.a.) All concept of private ownership begins with, and stems from, self ownership of all individuals, and conversely, all fruits of that self-ownership, including all fruits of their labor and profits from the sale, lease or licensed usage thereof.b.) No law or other legal mechanism shall be enacted that would limit, or impose any barrier or hardship upon any individual in their ability to enter into any voluntary agreement or transaction with another individual, group of individuals or private enterprise, or that would prompt, encourage or place any requirement on any individual to do so.

As stated by many here, the landlord is in violation of your first amendment rights. A lease or rental agreement cannot legally stop you from speaking to the press, or anyone else, about rent gouging or other illegal rental practices on the landlord's part.It is about as legally binding as if you are a witness to a robbery and the robber has you sign an agreement stating you will not call the police or identify him to anyone,The only way you can be in the wrong is if you are not telling the truth.I suspect you are in a rent control area or low income rentals where rent increases are strictly regulated or illegal. Your landlord is intimidating you. This in itself is not legal.You can send him a certified letter letting him know you know your rights and the laws he is breaking. You will need to find the laws in your area and cite each one he has broken in your certified letter.You can consult with a lawyer specializing in landlord/tenant law. This is the route I would take. If you do this without legal representation, any mistake you make could cost quite a lot. Your landlord is more likely to retaliate if you don't have legal representation. A lawyer can also give you more information on the steps you should take to sue for the infringement of your first amendment rights.I am not a lawyer, nor do I represent a lawyer or law firm.Know your rights as a tenant.Correction:The first amendment doesn't have any influence, my mistake. Unless this is in a state where that state's Constitution guarantees free speech and freedom of the press.