“The interesting thing is, no ordinance can be enforced on your property by any community, unless it proves to be unsafe for others.”
Sorry, Bill, but that is not a correct statement of the law. The government has a rather broad (though not unlimited) power to regulate property and its use resulting from one of several doctrines, the most common being the general police power to regulate for the health and welfare of the community.
“Therefore, because your grass is longer than your city would like, does not give them the right to 1) tell them how long it can be, and 2) does not, in any circumstance allow them to trespass on your property, let alone enter your house.”
Thus, the city indeed can regulate the length of your grass and, furthermore, can generally enter upon property to inspect and enforce those ordinances.
“Find out who they are and have [them] arrested.”
You can call the police, but you can’t force the police to arrest them. In this situation, I feel pretty safe saying that the police likely would not take any action to arrest the code enforcement officers.
“This ordinance thing falls under the "takings" issues of emminent domain, and no community has the right to restrict the use of your property, and if you want your lawn to 1 foot high, they have no right to tell you otherwise, and the US supreme court has said so.”
Unfortuantely, you apparently do not understand takings law. First of all, if an act is taking, that does not mean the government cannot do it, it simply means the government must pay the owner compensation for it. Second, most regulation of property, including zoning restrictions, building codes, regulations on how high the grass must be, condition of the sidewalk, etc., are not “takings” and thus do not require the government to compensate the owner. I don’t know what you read, but certainly your post does not reflect the Supreme Court opinions on the issue.