Yes, you're absolutely right. No federal laws in the U.S. have been changed since mid-1953. There is certainly no 18 U.S.C. 3594 limiting the application of the death penalty in federal cases to loss of life (of a non-participant in the same crime) or narcotics trafficking (thank Clinton for that one) and 18 U.S.C. 793 (the most serious offense he's likely to be charged with (gathering, transmitting or losing defense information) doesn't set the maximum penalty at ten years and $500,000 fine.

Proven by whom? In what court? He has not been charged with anything in the United States (yet). In the U.S. though, no one will ever need to prove that he didn't do something (so it never will be proved). The government will have to prove that he did if he is ever charged.

It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Jell-O is a trademark and is gelatin (or gelatine), which is completely different from jelly. One is made from skins and bones of animals and the other is made from fruit.

The word jelly to refer to a fruit preserve is not an Americanism. The food is. Jelly is made from fruit juice. Jam is made from fruit. They are completely different products. Jelly is not jam and jam is not jelly.

Among three? I refer you to Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. The United States Congress is bicameral, not tricameral.

Yeah, here in the U.S., we have this thing called a Constitution, and it prohibits random searches, because it's not worth my fucking time. However, most U.S. states punish drunk driving more severely.

No.By accepting a Floridian (or pretty much any U.S. state driver's license), you agree that licensure is conditional on coöperation with future field sobriety tests and breathalyzers. That's why it's implied consent that is expressly declared on nearly every document used in the licensure process. If you have the right to consent, you have the right to revoke that consent (especially when more information becomes available about the particulars).

Now, as to whether driving is a privilege or a right, bullshit. A privilege is a special advantage or immunity unique to a particular minority. It is a right, but not an inherent or natural one, to drive on public roads.

This is partly true (despite your improper and vulgar use of “privilege”): They can suspend or revoke your driver's license at any time.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't care whether or not you (or anyone else) like it, do not drink and drive.

csb

This part is true. However, it is still your constitutional right to refuse a breathalyzer without criminal penalty for such refusal. It is a condition of maintaining a valid driver's license and you will lose your license for such a refusal. Again however, with probable cause, you're fucked.

I wish I had mod points right now.

No, that checkpoint you described is probably typical. Every statistical analysis of areas that do these checkpoints and areas that don't shows that they do not decrease drunk driving. They pin cops down to specific spots that drunk drivers will avoid and then lack the flexibility they have when actually patrolling, so all the local drunks know where all the local cops are.

And the misuse of majuscules.

I think one can make an argument that random breathalyzers do violate the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Due process of law has always been interpreted as meaning that judicial officials operate independently of the executive and legislative branches, and this completely undermines that.

However, to make that argument that it's prohibited by the Fifth Amendment, you'd have to make an argument for incorporation of the Fifth Amendment (make it apply to the states, too, and not just the federal government) under the Fourteenth Amendment.

However, that's not necessary, because the Fourteenth Amendment has been found to incorporate the Fourth Amendment, and includes its own due process clause to protect against states.

And pollute our air with their crap? No thanks.

It is absolutely nothing like that distinction. One is completely legal and the other completely illegal whereas both attempted murder and murder are completely illegal.

I do not suggest anyone drive at 0.07 any more than I suggest driving and applying make-up at 80 mph. They are both legal (and the one “closer” to illegal is the lesser of the two evils).

Yes, that says that your license will be revoked on the spot if you refuse breathalyzer or other intoxication test.

You can sign anything you want saying you will consent to something in the future, but there are no criminal penalties for revoking that consent in the future. (But that means that you need to be prepared for a lawsuit.) The state however does not need to justify its revocation of your driver's license and they remove any such implication by requiring you to sign such a document.

However, if there is probable cause, the police can demand an immediate Breathalyzer, with or without your consent, and refusing that can (and most likely will) lead to criminal charges, too. (And kiss your license goodbye.)

Normally, police cannot order a blood test unless the Breathalyzer is over the limit.

The Fourth Amendment is part of the federal Constitution, but its protection is applied to the states, too, by the Fourteenth Amendment.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Florida State Constitution is also rather particular about this type of thing. From their state constitution:

Art. 1 12.–The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted and the nature of evidence to be obtained.

Most state constitutions in the U.S. have a far broader bill of rights than the one everyone's familiar with in the federal constitution (but state courts also tend to be looser in interpreting them).