a)
Quietly pass an obviously unconstitutional law (or better yet, a series of smaller laws that work together), don't enforce it too much against powerful or sympathetic people/groups and then do so for a decade until the court gets around to telling you to stop at which point you tweak the law just enough that you can lie and say it's different and reset the clock.
b)
Pass a law that lets you deny some right to "obviously bad people" (e.g. felons, people who beat their wives, addicts, etc) then quietly expand the scope of "obviously bad people" to include many normal people.
Decision whether something should be made a right should not be based on whether it can be labelled as passive or active, but whether it will benefit the society.
If making housing a right overall increases average life quality and makes unproductive lives productive it should be done. People here can disagree or agree whether the people who will get that housing will male something of their life, and this is something that we have to experiment with in order to find out.
Also if you believe that of the government and that government can not inherently be improved there is not much to do anyway.