 In the same vein as for the first few amendments, the fourth demands respect for the rights of sovereign citizens. It recognizes that the government can act against individual citizens on behalf of the public, but sets limiting conditions on the exercise of authority that is granted. Where these next few amendments would limit what can be done under government authority, there is also a consistent and continuing effort by government officers to void the effect of these amendments. Government officers seem in collusion to deny any provision that would hold them personally accountable. They seek protection for damages arising from any exercise where they feel their action is appropriate for those who are set into public authority. In the fourth amendment, the right of the sovereign citizen is recognized as to persons, papers, houses, and property. While there are recognized interferences on behalf of the public, they are to be accomplished under authority of a warrant from a judicial officer. The simple meaning of this is that any, and that is any at all, invasion of a home or seizure of a person or what they own is an exception action, not a general exercise of any officer's authority. It is necessarily a special case interference with a sovereign citizen's right. Of course, this is necessary for governance. Even as every arrest of a citizen involves a potential battery laying on of hands to perfect the arrest, so does every official action of seizure require a special purpose that justifies the action. Under this amendment, the basis for such an action is a warrant issued for the specific act from a judge of proper jurisdiction. It also requires an oath or affirmation upon which that action can be taken and an officer who acts as an officer of the court in serving the warrant. What government has done to defeat this right is to protect government officers from responsibility to the citizens who may be harmed by such exception actions. The usual cop-out is to claim that it is an invasion or seizure that is required as a duty of the office. That is a specious argument. Abusing a sovereign citizen or denying protection is not authorized and cannot be authorized under our constitutional agreement. A citizen does not have a right to do these things and cannot delegate that right to government through agreement. Providing an oath or affirmation to search or seize is not some duty that is required of any officer. The officer who provides that oath or affirmation is personally accountable for the reasonableness of the facts and the presentation upon which the warrant issues. Likewise, the judge is personally liable for acts done under his or her warrant and not to issue a warrant unless there is a reason to believe that the oath or affirmation is a reasonable basis for its issue. The judge needs to exercise due care that his or her authority to issue such a document is not abused by those who would initiate or act on the warrant. The one who serves the warrant and acts upon it is to be personally accountable for any actions that are beyond the specific terms of the warrant. Due care is a requirement. If the effort to serve a warrant goes beyond the limits of the warrant or improperly harms a citizen, that citizen has a basis for seeking redress against all three and they can be held accountable for any unreasonableness or failure to use due caution in their exceptional action against the citizen. Also, there is a personal liability in these officers for unnecessary or unreasonable damages incurred in the serving of the warrant. The harmed citizen has every right to treat any unreasonable damages suffered as the result of a conspiracy among those involved. Article 5 has been mistakenly addressed as establishing a set of citizen rights. Establishing rights is not a valid constitutional purpose. The purpose is ordaining and establishing a government. Further, a citizen has no ability to create new rights for his or her neighbors and accordingly citizens cannot delegate this as a power to government that they create by their agreement. These rights already existed for any sovereign citizen and this government established under the provisions of the constituting agreement is required to recognize the same. These officers are limited in their actions. They are not permitted to abuse a sovereign citizen in violation of any of these citizen rights. The right to be free of capital or infamous crime without a grand jury action establishes a public duty to engage citizen review before even an official accusation of crime. It is a right to be free of exceptional government process in these cases unless a panel of citizens has examined the evidence and find that an indictment or a presentment is appropriate. The inclusion of a presentment is of great consequence even if not commonly supported. It is the power of the grand jury as a representative body of sovereign citizens to address other matters. Their findings may also address ancillary matters as in finding that federal officers engaged in unreasonable acts in creating or serving a warrant or might have manufactured or withheld or destroyed evidence. The grand jury is a representative body of sovereign citizens and does not answer to other public authority. Their findings on other matters can be issued to the court directly and can accuse other persons both civilian and officers of any criminal wrongdoing. Presentments are to be matters for judicial notice and action. The second provision banning double jeopardy is a procedural limitation. The citizen who has faced a federal criminal action and been exonerated cannot be simply reaccused and retried. This is not so much a right as a ban on a past abuse of people by sovereign government actions. Early American history had given effect to abusive practices such as pressing to force people to respond to sovereign government inquiry or accusations. Those who refused to answer were subject to torture or even death should they remain silent. This was wholly inappropriate when the people are sovereign. People did not have a right to compel answer from their neighbors and could not delegate such authority to those who govern as their representatives or agents. As compelling testimony was a recognized abuse, this provision in the Fifth Amendment made it clear that all this behavior would not be authorized. The due process provision is repetitious of language in the original document. Also coming out from a feudal background, the sovereign right of the citizen to real and personal property ownership was intensified. The sovereign citizen had no right to seize his or her neighbor's property and could not delegate the same to those who would govern as representatives or agents of the people. Still, government had needs. And the agreement was, under this provision, that the government could take what it needed so long as it gave just return for the taking. The Fifth Amendment does not grant citizen rights. It is a continuation of the process of ordaining and empowering a government, an agreement among those who are governed. The right against self-incrimination has been directly abused by federal employees who would refuse to publish their actions as public officers. The private refusal is, of course, to be supported. But the consequence of private matters overriding public duty leaves the officeholder clearly unfit for any continuation in public service. While the raising of the amendment is supported, the requirement of representing the public when in public office cannot be denied. There is no proper legal action in serving the public office that might be criminal. Public officers should not be allowed to continue in office if their private matters are such as to interfere with their fulfilling the public office's duties. Our Sixth Amendment does not create citizen rights, but rather establishes conditional rights for a citizen who is accused of crime. It is a very special case interaction where the federal government acts in opposition to accused sovereign citizen. This amendment establishes procedural requirements for the government if it is to prosecute the accused. Under English common law, the sovereign government does not create citizen rights but rather establishes conditional rights for a citizen who is accused of crimes. Sovereign government had unchallenged authority to recognize and prosecute criminal citizen actions. The American experiment held the sovereign citizen authority above that of government. For prosecution in the United States, authority requires recognition of the rights of the people to take action against one another for criminal offenses. That requires delegation of some of that potential, but not all, to the government created through constitutional agreement among the people. Chief among this is recognition of the involvement of a jury of other sovereign citizens. The government is denied ability to act against the sovereign citizen in this special case without the direct and representative involvement of a jury of other sovereign citizens. The government operating under the constituting agreement is never authorized to proceed against a sovereign citizen in the name of the people without a specific involvement of representative group of sovereign people to approve that individual proceeding. Agreement among the members of the jury provides the final authorization for government officers to proceed on the specific action before the court. A secondary matter is the ability to compel others to witness another conditional right granted to a sovereign who is accused of a crime. The citizen cannot be isolated in his or her efforts at defense. Likewise, the citizen can get such professional aid and support as might neutralize the expertise of those who prosecute. The constitutionally authorized government is compelled to support the citizen even as it attempts prosecution under the watchful eye of a citizen jury. In application, the courts have addressed the same rights to compel testimony and provide representation to the prosecution even though the state does not have that right. Fairness in procedural matters has been an element of the common law from before there was the United States. These articles do not establish citizen rights. That would be beyond the constitutional purpose of ordaining and establishing a government. It does recognize and give minimum application to some citizen rights. And it does establish conditional rights for those who must endure public prosecution or whose property is needed by the public for its larger corporate operations. Still, the basic citizen rights belong to we the people.