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).

Have you ever looked at a Canadian Conservative Party Platform? On some things they're further to the right than American Republicans. Canadians are in a completely different political context than American counterparts and there are no direct equivalencies. Canada is a large petroleum exporter and petroleum producing companies are much more influential there than in most of the U.S. Canadians may share more of a cultural affinity with contemporary Democrats, but their issues are nowhere near the same and that affinity would be gone if they had to come up with a common platform. Yes, there'd probably be a little less evangelicalism in politics overall (again, that's more the political culture than the politics itself).

Again though, this is all assuming that an annexed Canada would be granted statehood in the Union, and there's no precedent for that happening when the U.S. government decides to annex a territory without sufficient support already in place. (Out of 50 current states, 31 were territories first. The thirteen colonies, Vermont, Kentucky (started off as southwestern Virginia, i.e., one of the 13 colonies), Maine (split off from Massachusetts in 1820, i.e., one of the 13 colonies), Texas (invaded by Americans that fought to keep it independent from Spain first, and then from México, established a government similar in form and principle to other state governments, and uniquely annexed by treaty), California (Compromise of 1850, and again with a sudden influx of Americans establishing a government similar to other state governments).)

Canada, even in this bizarre scenario, meets none of those criteria. Were it annexed, it would likely be an unorganized (Congress not creating a new government for it; not even a non-voting delegate sent to Congress) unincorporated (limited application of U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights) territory.

However, even should Palin be elected in 2012, that nightmare scenario for Canada is just nonsense.

No, Anonymous Coward, your grand pronouncements aside, property, in American law, is grounded on the right to exclude.

See:
Rakas v. Illinois 429 US 128 (1978)
Kaisner Aetna v. United States 444 US 164 (1979)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp 258 US 419 (1982)
Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n 483 US 825 (1987)
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins 447 US 74 (1980)
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM 353 US 232 (1957)
Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 US 374 (1994)
Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy 367 US 888 (1961)
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Corp. 467 US 986 (1984)

(This list could go on almost forever.)

<sarcasm>Yes, you're absolutely right: nearly a millennium of common law development has suddenly been shaken by your grand pronouncement.</sarcasm>

Sorry, but as this is about American property law, which for the U.S. Supreme Court, has centered on that attribute that the owner has the right to exclude others (especially “the public”), and that that is the most definitive characteristic of private property. Without that right, it is not property.

An easement is property; it is not a refutation of it. That's like saying that the existence of debt means there's no such thing as money.

Well, no: as that article states:

An easement is the right to use the real property of another without possessing it. Easements are helpful for providing pathways across two or more pieces of property or allowing an individual to fish in a privately owned pond. An easement is considered as a property right in itself at common law and is still treated as a type of property in most jurisdictions.

An easement is a specific grant of a limited use right by a (present or historical) property-owner (for some other consideration); easements are specific and do not allow for universal access to one's property. Easements are a property right, not some contravention of property rights.

That is ridiculously absurd. There are probably a few municipalities with rules like that in the U.S., but there is certainly no federal prohibition on fences of any given height (or any federal law relating to zoning), but in areas where a private driveway is likely to be mistaken for a road (i.e., out in the sticks), zoning is not generally an issue. They probably could have had a 12-foot fence if they had wanted it and saved the lawyer's fee.

Normally yes, but this was in a private driveway (that Googlers probably didn't realize when they went down it).

Then there's no case. Problem solved.