An unfortunately believable, but fake, news story

Isabelle Hajek, Opinions Editor


Imagine, if you will, that the Constitution is a colonial-era house. And then consider:

Man protects “rotten house” against community’s pleas

Homeowner Sam Aquilae has faced backlash because of his decision to protect his house, despite the warnings of the dangers it poses.

The house, which was completed in 1789 by his multiple-great grandfather, has been passed down through the family. Located on a hill that overlooks the rest of town, Aquilae’s family has watched the town grow.

“This was the first house built in this town,” said Aquilae. “My forefather drafted the plans and had it built as a monument to his pride in our family. It was meant to act as an example for all of the other buildings around here.”

Over the past 60-some years Aquilae has received pushback from the community to tear down the house in order to maintain the safety of the rest of the town below. There have been multiple petitions and pleas for him to do so, but he will only concede to add a few layers of paint to make the house more presentable.

Local community organizer Enola Piscis said, “That house was built over 245 years ago. I understand the pride of family, but it just isn’t safe. The boards and support beams are rotting, the wiring is shoddy as it was retrofitted to the old thing, the roof is caving in and the foundation won’t hold.”

The house was built before building codes were in effect. The foundation of the home is made of crumbling sandstone and softwood. The builders, in order to accommodate the poor building material, dug so deep into the hill that rainfall threatened to collapse the house and send the rumble down towards the town.

“He needs to face the fact that the builders didn’t know what the future was going to hold and the house wasn’t meant for all of this,” said Piscis. “I just keep asking myself: Why protect a rotten house?”

In response, Aquilae stands resolved that he would never tear down the house and that it doesn’t need heavy repairs.

“We were here first,” said Aquilae “If they do not like how it looks or they’re scared, then they should just leave and find a new town to live in. I am not afraid of what will happen, so why should they be?”

In addressing the concerns listed by Piscis, Aquilae said, “The house is absolutely fine. I make sure it is kept up, the lawn is mowed, the gardens bloom, and there is a fresh coat of paint on it yearly. It has lasted almost 245 years, it will be fine for 1000 more.”

Aquilae has not lived in the “rotten house” for the last 67 years; instead, he spends his time in a neighboring town in a house he rebuilt just last year.

Piscis and various town officials plan on starting another petition to ask him to tear down the house. This time, they are even offering to pay for the demolition, although they are not hopeful it will work.

In a time where headlines and political arguments read more and more like satire, it is hard to discern irony from sincerity, much like this piece. The unfortunate reality is that faulty logic promotes faulty policy and faulty laws in the country.

The reverence given to the U.S Constitution and its amendments fails to account for the need of the document to evolve. Originalists will have you believe that framers of the Constitution intended for a 17-year-old to cross state lines, kill two people and maim another with a semi-automatic AR-15 style rifle and they intended that a 15-year-old should have had unrestricted access to a 15-round, 9mm pistol, eventually used in a school shooting, while they drafted the second amendment.

The destructive power of guns has come a long way since the single-round, front-loaded, flintlock muskets of the founding fathers’ time. Will another coat of paint protect us from the next hail of bullets?