Here are all the arguments that the homeowners should have used before the Supreme Court.

In their argument before the Supreme Court the homeowners used this argument

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It's the last part they used

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Yes just the Fifth Amendment should have been enough as it is totally unambiguous and so totally clear that even a fifth grader knows exactly what it says and means. See the two words 'public use'. Those words mean what they say and that does not mean private property can be taken for private corporations or it would have read: nor shall private property be taken for public or private use, without just compensation. Those words 'for public use' are very clear and it is to prevent any decision like the Supreme Court made. A smart child in the fifth grade can tell you what that means. I don't know what they taught them in law school in the 1960's but 200 years ago the first year law students learned this rote until their eyes were glazed over.

To me it means that five Supreme Court Justices raised themselves above the Constitution and the law of the land and that is a violation of their oath of office. That means dismissal is allowed by the President (if I recall correctly. I think it can be done immediately, and it should be or the country will soon find itself in dire straits.). Dismissal because of the violation of their oath of office was often used 200 years ago in similar situations for various office holders. It's the same thing as firing someone in the private sector for not doing their job. It's also the reason that if you buy a ticket to a stage performance and the players go out on strike then you can get your money back.

The violation of the oath of office is, from the legal point of view, actually a type of breach of contract which allows or probably makes mandatory the abrogation of the contract by the party that swore them in, which is the present holder of the office that swore them in. Which was probably the president. He must abrogate their contract (fire them) or he is in violation of his oath of office. Then he gets to fill those positions with five new Supreme Court justices.


To show you how important this unique concept was to America 'real ownership of land' it was protected by two other amendments as well.

Further arguments should have been made using the other two amendments that I mentioned earlier.

The home owners could have added the Fourth Amendment to this kettle of slimy fishy claims to steal their home.

They forgot to use the Fourth Amendment which presupposes that you have exclusive rights in your own home. There were some assumptions such as this one that were made when writing the Constitution. Another one is that all men are created equal. That is not in the Constitution either. It's assumed that people understand these two basic human rights. To have explained all these details in the U.S. Constitution would have made it many times as long.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The only way a government agency can even enter your house is if they have reasonable evidence that you have committed a crime. that allows them to get proper warrants which are required to enter your home. This states the only conditions by which the government has a right to ever enter your home. This statement excludes all other government entry into your home.

There is one final amendment that should have also been used by the home owners.

Amendment III

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.

The Army has often proven that there is no other part of the Federal Government that is more of a benefit than they are and yet only in war is a home owner required to allow them to use their home. Even they can't use your home for the night during peace time unless you let them.

This tells the home owner that the only branch of the government that can even enter your house without a warrant is the U.S. Army and even then they can only enter in order to house soldiers and only when it is in time of war. This rule automatically excludes all other government agencies from even being able to enter your home even in time of war.

Any one of these three amendments alone should have prevented such confiscation as has been allowed by the Supreme Court. Together those three should have been totally clear what the intent of the forefathers was. Each of them were designed to stand alone though.

All those three amendments could have been put together into one amendment but it would have made it too easy to cancel out real private ownership of property.

It was separated into three amendments so any one of the amendments could hold up in any court alone. That was in case the other two were negated by the addition of new amendments. Before personal homes were taken by any government agency it was thought it would be necessary to eliminate all three of these Amendments.

To have the Supreme Court just ignore two of these three makes me totally infuriated. Doesn't it do the same thing to you? Attorneys and judges often don't look at the big picture though.

It was put into three different amendments any one of which should preclude any question of a municipal governments being allowed to confiscate your home.

How can anyone consider giving a minor municipal government such sweeping powers over you and your home when the forefathers denied access of your and my home even to the US Army in peacetime and gave them only very limited power to use during war time?

The addition of this information should make enough sense to the members of the Supreme Court and get them to decide to rehear the case and vote again but be fair this time.

I'd hate to resort to the use of caveats which I explain here. However, one exists that can dissolve the Supreme Court and there is another one that can make it completely ineffective. You think I didn't put 'back doors' in the Constitution like they do now in computer programs? You are quite wrong if that is what you think. I don't think any one should worry about it though or that I might be kidnapped and made to expose them all. I don't think anyone has to worry about that but I could be wrong since I can't remember most of them. Though I think about the caveats occasionally in passing it's quite fleeting. Honestly I can only remember them when they are absolutely needed to maintain the nation's stability, security and continuation. I can't seem to remember any of them otherwise.

(I think that one of them can call for a mistrial if they are all in agreement and then rehear the case that way. I may have forgotten the sequence of events in the last 200 years though. There is a second way too but off hand I can't recall it.)

Previous Page

2005 John Pinil