Monday, March 23, 2009

Milhous K. "Grr" Sanka Wants City Attorney to Explain Why Proposed "Granny Unit" Ordinance Doesn't Violate the USA Constitution


I am astonished that city staff proposes imposing on people by forcing their In-Laws, specifically people's children's Grandmothers, to stay with them for extended periods. Whom among us in these tight economic times would risk being forced to put up greedy relatives whom will eat us out of house and home? Anyway, I pulled out my U.S. Constitution and right there, in Article III of the Bill of Rights, it says, "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." Well, by extension rules applying to Soldiers also apply to In-Laws in general and Grandmothers in particular. These mooching, nagging relatives certainly do deprive the less fortunate home Owners of Alameda of their groceries, to say nothing of their peace and quiet, just as surely as a squad of hungry Soldiers in a time of war. I should know: My In-Laws have been here all week, and they have been plundering my refrigerator and invading my privacy as if my house were some sun-baked sandbox of a country sitting on top of a great, big mess of oil. Furthermore, Article XXI, Section 2, states that "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." Clearly, my house is my "Territory" as well as my "Possession," and I am a citizen of the "United States," so, by simple extrapolation, my house is both a "Territory" and a "Possession of the United States." Now, the laws of my house state that all intoxicating liquors shall be shared equally among all family members of legal drinking age, with the largest portion going to the head of the household, to wit, myself, and yet during my fascinating after-dinner discourses on the correct interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, I have seen Granny repeatedly sneak a nip from a little flask she keeps in her purse without ever offering so much as a sip to me! I would like to hear Teresa Highsmith, Alameda's City Attorney, explain why this "Granny Unit" proposal is not unconstitutional. When will city staff and our elected representatives wake up to the rights of the people? Do we have to hire a lawyer to get a judge to sound the wake up call?

Milhous K. "Grr" Sanka

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

My grandmothers and my mother-in-law are both dead. Does that mean that I would have to have a seance and invite them back to Alameda from the Other Side? (And no, I do NOT mean Oakland.)

Would substituting some other kind of "illegal alien" be an acceptable legal remedy? (Would that be Constitutional?)