What, if anything, do you think needs to be changed about the U.S. Constitution?

federal judges have term limits.

no filibusters at all. elections have consequences and if one side lost the battl of ideas, then try to work on improving the next time around.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

that was another point i made in another thread.....

we have the war on terror, and it's serious business, and i need to let the TSA cup my hackysack like we're in a friggin' porno, before i can ride on a plane, and we need to have the NSA watching everything, because the terrorists might get us if we don't, and if you see something, say something......terrorism is SUCH a huge problem....but thousands of people sneak over the border every day, and we've had instances of some of them being from the middle east, and potentially terrorists.....so honestly.... either they're serious about protecting the country, or this whole war on terror thing is bunk, and is only theater for us, to keep us afraid, so we'll accept the shift to a complete police state, up to, and including the day they drop the constitution into a paper shredder on national television.....

i always wondered why the federal government is more interested in securing the borders of countries thousands of miles away, than they are about securing the borders around their own home....

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

indeed we can pass, and apparently enforce, unconstitutional laws....

gun purchase licenses are technically unconstitutional, as are ownership permits, any kind of carry permit, and restrictions on firearms based on function, or physical appearance. these are all unconstitutional, as they violate the 2nd amendment.

nobody cares.

the supreme court ruled that any law that violates the constitution, shall be null and void, and to be treated as if it had never been passed. so technically, between that ruling, and the wording of the 2nd amendment, i SHOULD be able to strap my sidearm on my hip, and go for a walk....the law is on my side.....but since people are stupid, and don't know the law, and this includes the police, i'll end up with some sissy calling the cops, flipping the f**k out, and the next thing you know, i'm surrounded by a horde of trigger happy mouth-breathers, and i'm probably full of holes before i can say "what the actual f**k?"

there are plenty of unconstitutional, illegal laws on the books....nobody gives a damn..

a reply to: Daedalus

In response to your first reply of the previous 2.

I agree and have thought and conversed about the same things. I have my own conspiracy theory about it, that I do my best to keep legit and not totally out-there-crazy.

If you open your eyes, it really doesn't make any sense. I spend a lot of time on the internet, and I've had one too many strangers know too much about me. This tells me that spying is being used as psychological warfare on the citizens of the U.S. My theory is it is being used to harass people that the government doesn't want making a ripple, and perhaps just being abused by certain unsupervised individuals.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

indeed we can pass, and apparently enforce, unconstitutional laws....

This because our law enforcement abides by the orders without question. A reason I contribute to the increasing militarization of the police force. What are marines and army soldiers good at? Taking orders without question, and many of them have no clue as to what the constitution means or even is. HONESTY.

I worked in a minimal capacity at a low level of the federal government on private property.

My superiors continuously harassed me and violated my civil rights. I ended up writing them a 5 page legal document on all the violations they had been committing against me. They wanted me gone. The most anti-American domestic individuals that I have ever met because of the positions that they held and the fatigues that they wore and the things that they swore to uphold.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
a reply to: Aazadan

1. Wage cuts are not a problem if taxes also go down.
2. Competition is not only for products, but also for people. Competition for the best people would drive wages up pretty quickly.
3. You're assuming employers only care about the bottom line, which is untrue. Even if it were, though, my second point holds true

4. Agreed, international trade does make competition complicated. There are ways to "equalize" the playing field (tariffs) but the overhead associated with moving products overseas inherently favors local production.

Reducing taxes is dangerous territory because we replace visible progressive taxes with hidden regressive taxes. Sales tax and gas taxes are examples of regressive taxes while the income tax is a progressive tax. Progressive taxes are better for a few reasons but the two big ones are that the poor collectively simply don't have enough money to tax. The bottom 50% only own what is it 5% of the wealth? That doesn't provide for a usable tax base. The other part comes in living expenses, you have the bottom 1% of the population like me who has to spend 100% of what they make on necessities, that means 100% of my income goes through a 7% sales tax. People with more money are less effected by these taxes as a percentage which leads to them paying a lower share when they're the ones who can best afford to spend more.

Aside from this, realistically we can only reduce taxes if we also reduce spending. There are only two areas of the budget where we can cut and substantial amount and that's from the military and the welfare programs. Cutting welfare essentially says people are going to be paid less but also get less support. This hits them twice and means that they simply don't have enough money to live. This leads to a severe increase in crime and if it gets bad enough even worse things as people can't afford food. The only other area to cut is the military and we simply don't have the political will to do that, and even if we did we have a very real threat south of the border in the cartels and a fairly reasonable expectation that we'll need to use our military again in the middle east so cutting back substantially here just isn't an option either.

Competition does exist when it comes to people, but we're now in an era where the entirety of the population isn't required in order to complete all of the work. This puts higher demand on the jobs which means people will compete in order to take the lowest wage because something is better than nothing. Our wages for everyone other than the top 5% or so have been stagnant or declined over the past 35 years, this is a very real effect and it is getting worse. Competition is harming us, not helping us. Those few exceptional people have seen higher wages but guess what? 99% of the population isn't that exceptional elite and they have needs too. By definition most of us are average or below average in our skill set, that doesn't mean the majority of the population isn't still entitled to a decent life.

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
I worked in a minimal capacity at a low level of the federal government on private property.

My superiors continuously harassed me and violated my civil rights. I ended up writing them a 5 page legal document on all the violations they had been committing against me. They wanted me gone. The most anti-American domestic individuals that I have ever met because of the positions that they held and the fatigues that they wore and the things that they swore to uphold.

My experience has always been that there's a set of laws that says how things should be, and then there's how things are in reality. According to the law you are protected from a search and seizure, but in practice you can be pulled over for driving suspiciously, then your vehicle and person can be searched because the officer smelled something. When working there's the idea that you're being paid a certain wage for your work but in practice you're given a workload that takes twice as long to do and it's up to you to "find a way" to get it done in time, or do it without pay.

I remember my high school job back when I was 16, the labor laws said I couldn't work past 10 but my usual shift was 7pm-3 am and the general expectation was that I would serve alcohol while being underage. A job I worked a few years ago was randomly reclassified as a tipped position even though there were no tips, but it allowed the employer to pay me half as much and proving I don't make tips to cover for it is essentially having to prove a negative. Laws and reality rarely coincide because people cut corners.

Originally posted by: Aazadan

I dislike progressive taxes because they remove incentives to become wealthy (wealthy people employ other people to get wealthy...it's good for those who need jobs.) I also dislike regressive taxes because they hurt poor people. But it's possible for states to tax at a flat rate (say, 10%) that doesn't specifically single out any groups to hurt. Or, they can do what they did in the old days and subsist on tariffs and luxury taxes. (Which are a progressive tax; you should approve )

Cutting welfare does mean cutting support, but it also means employers aren't having to pay for it in taxes, meaning they will hire more people (so as to get richer by producing more) meaning fewer people will need to be on welfare...

As far as reducing spending, there are a lot of ways we can reduce spending:

- streamline regulatory agencies (many of them, like the ATF, DHS, FBI etc. overlap and could be consolidated and shrunk.)
- military spending could be chopping in half. We don't "need" to go into the Middle East, and we don't need to deploy anything stronger than a police force and national guard against the cartels. Nations like China and Russia have much worse defensive situations (larger borders, hostile enemies, population problems, financial difficulties) but they make do adequately with tiny budgets compared to the Pentagon's.
- cut overseas spending (overseas bases, USAID)

If we need more money, we can cut down on regulatory burdens. Obviously we need to retain methods to punish wrongdoers (if someone poisons my food, they should go to jail) but a lot of useless regulatory costs could probably be cut. (I've seen state personnel interfere with private businesses and dictate "improvements" they have to make with their business that were not in the building code; completely arbitrary.) This would free up more money so the greedy big businesses, wanting to make even more, would hire more personnel. It would also spur small business creation.

Need more money? We could become a tax haven like Liechtenstein. The average person there has a decent life; in fact, they are rich and happy

BTW, I don't believe we're entitled to a decent life. There's no force on earth that can guarantee that; plenty of the elite have entirely indecent lives.

originally posted by: Aazadan

My experience has always been that there's a set of laws that says how things should be, and then there's how things are in reality. According to the law you are protected from a search and seizure, but in practice you can be pulled over for driving suspiciously, then your vehicle and person can be searched because the officer smelled something.

Well, that would fall under an exigent circumstance and reasonable suspicion. If a law enforcement officer has reason to suspect that you are committing a crime, then as an exigent circumstance he or she has the right to search your person or your immediate property i.e. vehicle. In the circumstance that you mentioned, the contraband would be appealing to one of the senses of the officer. In this case, his or her sense of smell.

You cannot use a constitutional right to invalidate crime or protect yourself from fugitivism etc.. However, I have my own opinion on cannabis. I think it should be legalized anyway.

When working there's the idea that you're being paid a certain wage for your work but in practice you're given a workload that takes twice as long to do and it's up to you to "find a way" to get it done in time, or do it without pay.

Depends on the contract and/or terms of agreement and the state that you live in. Typical state jobs don't treat their employees this way. You get paid for time on the clock. Places like factories or warehouses will increase pay for efficient productivity. The same can be said for athletes; more production, more pay.

I remember my high school job back when I was 16, the labor laws said I couldn't work past 10 but my usual shift was 7 pm-3 am and the general expectation was that I would serve alcohol while being underage.

Laws aren't always followed, but under those circumstances you have the legal strong-hand. All you'd have to do is report your employer if there was ever a problem. I just wonder if you were aware of the labor laws back then.

A job I worked a few years ago was randomly reclassified as a tipped position even though there were no tips, but it allowed the employer to pay me half as much and proving I don't make tips to cover for it is essentially having to prove a negative. Laws and reality rarely coincide because people cut corners.

Well, yes, and it's a lack of proper law enforcement and adherence.

The fact that a job that accrues no tips was classified as a tip job is beyond me. Poor legislation. If this was carried out solely by the employer, again, it's illegal. Call the better business bureau or alert the EEOC or OSHA.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

The Politicans who don't Abide with it .

a reply to: ParanoidAmerican

That's why the US is NOT a democracy....duh...

It is written as a democratic republic, since the new deal however, it has been a socialist republic and is quickly becoming an oligarchy...

Jaden

I think the main problem with the US Constitution is the fact that it gives "rights" to the citizenry. We don't need all those rights. It would be easier just let the government make things up as they go along. If they want us to protest against them, they will tell us to. If they want to take our guns away, it's probably for the best. The government knows what is best for all of us. Our politicians truly care about us and strive to make our lives better. Why do we need rights when we have people like that looking after us? Said the government...lulz.

Honestly I think the Constitution is pretty good the way it is. The main problem I see is its vagueness in certain areas. We have a good idea, for instance, that the right to bear arms was intended to give the people a means of fighting an oppressive government who nullifies or disregards the rights of the citizenry, but it should have come right out and made this explicitly clear. It should also have stated that the Constitution is meant to limit what the government can do, and does not imply that people only have these rights and therefore the government can do anything not expressly forbidden. If that made sense. So clarification in the document itself would have eliminated the need for speculation on our part. Even though we have a good idea of what the intent was, often from reading other documents from the time including personal correspondence, because the US Constitution is not always clear on the intent of certain things there is wiggle room for the government. And that is bad. Other than that the Constitution would be much better if it were simply followed to the letter. But it is not always followed, which should be a grave crime against the citizenry. If the government violates a person's basic Constitutional rights, there should be a public hanging. It is that serious. Well maybe not an execution, but you get my point...It is not a trifling occurrence considering this document is the foundation of what America is, or was intended to be.

a reply to: Masterjaden

That post has nothing to do with American government it is about a website the person I replied to posted...

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I dislike progressive taxes because they remove incentives to become wealthy (wealthy people employ other people to get wealthy...it's good for those who need jobs.) I also dislike regressive taxes because they hurt poor people. But it's possible for states to tax at a flat rate (say, 10%) that doesn't specifically single out any groups to hurt. Or, they can do what they did in the old days and subsist on tariffs and luxury taxes. (Which are a progressive tax; you should approve

)

I can agree with the idea that there's an incentive to becoming wealthy but taxes don't remove that incentive to any significant degree. Even when we had top rates of 90% (which were really about 45% on paper) people still strove to make more money. I don't think we need to go back to that but the tax rates could go up a bit without any negative consequences. A flat 10% rate is simply too low (and the definition of a regressive tax) without cutting spending.

Cutting welfare does mean cutting support, but it also means employers aren't having to pay for it in taxes, meaning they will hire more people (so as to get richer by producing more) meaning fewer people will need to be on welfare...

But employers don't pay taxes as it is. All tax costs are passed onto the end consumer they don't come out of the profit margin. In the case of the large employers, many of them use accounting loopholes to circumvent the issue all together.

As far as reducing spending, there are a lot of ways we can reduce spending:

No, there's really not. Between welfare programs, interest, mandatory payments, and the military we use 83% of our federal budget. We could cut every single thing that isn't one of the above by 100% (roads, education, law enforcement, FDA, etc) and we wouldn't even cut enough to eliminate the deficit by half. Welfare and the military MUST go if we're going to cut spending by any significant amount.

- military spending could be chopping in half. We don't "need" to go into the Middle East, and we don't need to deploy anything stronger than a police force and national guard against the cartels. Nations like China and Russia have much worse defensive situations (larger borders, hostile enemies, population problems, financial difficulties) but they make do adequately with tiny budgets compared to the Pentagon's.

Unfortunately that's not true. I don't agree with the militaries goal of having WW2 level forces as our standing army, that's simply ridiculous but at a minimum we need the ability to put a defending force in Israel (we gave them the nukes, it's up to us to make sure they don't have to use them) should the need arise and the ability to wipe out the cartels that are a growing problem. Unfortunately we're kind of stuck as the worlds policemen too, we're using our military to maintain the dollar as the worlds currency. We can probably reduce our standing forces by 30% or so, but more has some pretty severe consequences.

Some regulations could be cut but many regulations serve a purpose, besides that these regulations cost very little in terms of federal spending especially when compared to the good they do. The expense here is best measured not in federal spending but in increased corporate costs.

Besides that, we've turned the military industrial complex into a major piece of our economy. By reducing military action we more or less sacrifice millions of jobs with nothing to replace them. That's going to multiply the damage done by cutting spending.

BTW, I don't believe we're entitled to a decent life. There's no force on earth that can guarantee that; plenty of the elite have entirely indecent lives.

That's where we disagree. I don't think the people on the bottom of the income ladder deserve the nicest things or anything like that, that removes all incentive to earn more. The bottom rung of society should still be able to have a roof, food, a few distractions, and some hope of retiring one day however without needing to rely on handouts.

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
Well, that would fall under an exigent circumstance and reasonable suspicion. If a law enforcement officer has reason to suspect that you are committing a crime, then as an exigent circumstance he or she has the right to search your person or your immediate property i.e. vehicle. In the circumstance that you mentioned, the contraband would be appealing to one of the senses of the officer. In this case, his or her sense of smell.

You cannot use a constitutional right to invalidate crime or protect yourself from fugitivism etc.. However, I have my own opinion on cannabis. I think it should be legalized anyway.

Well, I never mentioned what the officer smelled but when an officer pulled that on me he said he smelled alcohol in my car. Quite a feat as I have never drank in my life. If the officer sees something suspicious they have probable cause, but again they've learned how to get around it. In theory we have the right but in practice acting normal is being suspicious and a camera can't verify what the officer smells.

Depends on the contract and/or terms of agreement and the state that you live in. Typical state jobs don't treat their employees this way. You get paid for time on the clock. Places like factories or warehouses will increase pay for efficient productivity. The same can be said for athletes; more production, more pay.

Maybe they don't, I can only go by what I've seen though. You're paid for say 4 hours of work but handed 10 hours of work and expected to somehow get it done. If you don't do it, you're out of a job. The job in question was being a tutor at a college. There would be more demand than there was funds to pay for it, but the college couldn't simply turn people away because that would reduce enrollment which would then reduce funding, which would then create a vicious circle of declining income. That's just the way these things work.

The fact that a job that accrues no tips was classified as a tip job is beyond me. Poor legislation. If this was carried out solely by the employer, again, it's illegal. Call the better business bureau or alert the EEOC or OSHA.

When it's an employers market in a small town that's simply not an option. If you report your employer you'll get the wages they owed you but you'll be out of a job and have a record of reporting your employer following you. That ensures you'll never get work again so you better hope they owe you a lot of money. Taking what is essentially a pay cut means you get something rather than nothing.

i feel you on this, but i wanted to pop in a couple of corrections....

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I think the main problem with the US Constitution is the fact that it gives "rights" to the citizenry. We don't need all those rights. It would be easier just let the government make things up as they go along. If they want us to protest against them, they will tell us to. If they want to take our guns away, it's probably for the best. The government knows what is best for all of us. Our politicians truly care about us and strive to make our lives better. Why do we need rights when we have people like that looking after us? Said the government...lulz.

i understand that this was sarcasm, and satire, but i just wanna make absolutely sure that you understand that the constitution doesn't "give" us any rights...it codifies them....meaning it puts into writing, and makes official, that which all of us already know...it puts it in writing, and guarantees to protect it.

Honestly I think the Constitution is pretty good the way it is. The main problem I see is its vagueness in certain areas. We have a good idea, for instance, that the right to bear arms was intended to give the people a means of fighting an oppressive government who nullifies or disregards the rights of the citizenry, but it should have come right out and made this explicitly clear. It should also have stated that the Constitution is meant to limit what the government can do, and does not imply that people only have these rights and therefore the government can do anything not expressly forbidden. If that made sense. So clarification in the document itself would have eliminated the need for speculation on our part. Even though we have a good idea of what the intent was, often from reading other documents from the time including personal correspondence, because the US Constitution is not always clear on the intent of certain things there is wiggle room for the government. And that is bad. Other than that the Constitution would be much better if it were simply followed to the letter. But it is not always followed, which should be a grave crime against the citizenry. If the government violates a person's basic Constitutional rights, there should be a public hanging. It is that serious. Well maybe not an execution, but you get my point...It is not a trifling occurrence considering this document is the foundation of what America is, or was intended to be.

here's the deal...the language of the constitution is pretty damn clear...if one knows how to read.

problem is that over the last 250 years, we've bastardized the language so much, that nobody understands it [the constitution as it's written] anymore...and the government counts on that, so they can "interpret" it, and tell us what it means..it's basically a blank check to redefine our rights, as they see fit....very insidious..

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis
a reply to: imnotanother

Congress retains the right to tax as they see appropriate.

I have sympathy for your stance, but if we are not taxed, then our government can do less.

Yeah...thats the point!

1. Lying is an impeachable offence.
2. Term limits (2 Years?) including judges.
3. One term during any person's lifetime
4. Limited, pre-defined budgets for entertainment.
5. Illegal to personally benefit from decisions/votes (eg. you must abstain)
6. No switching parties after election.
7. If you don't uphold and enforce the law, you are breaking the law and are immediately terminated.
8. All paid politicians must directly answer questions from the people's representatives fully and truthfully. (eg. spin is considered lying...see number 1)
9. No information is considered classified from the people's representatives (House and/or Senate). No redactions, no vanishing emails, etc. Any proof of keeping such information from the people's representatives is cause for immediate termination.
10. A simple understanding: The President must consider the interest of every, legal citizen not just the group that elected them. The representatives of the people (House & Senate) may lean toward those people and the states that elected them.
11. Each law, bill, etc. may only contain one topical item. No combination of "we give you this and you give us that". Example: Increase the military budget and build Joe a library bearing his name.
12. Wishful thinking: An immediate re-boot button. If a 75% majority feels the current elected/paid representatives are not considering their best interest...they are all fired and...see rule number 3.

That would be a good start

originally posted by: Aazadan

Well, I never mentioned what the officer smelled, but when an officer pulled that on me he said he smelled alcohol in my car. Quite a feat as I have never drank in my life. If the officer sees something suspicious they have probable cause, but again they've learned how to get around it. In theory we have the right but in practice acting normal is being suspicious and a camera can't verify what the officer smells.

True. Sometimes all of this replying makes my head a bit loopy, but I do my best to reply to the content as it is presented. You did not specify the substance, just a smell.

Either way, exigent circumstances would come into play. Both alcohol and marijuana are illegal. Like I said, you are committing a crime. You cannot construe your constitutional rights in a way that invalidates crime. That's your fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be an American, and I assume you'll never change your mind. If so, I'm not willing to further this part of our discussion. I'll never argue for making legit crime legal through citing constitutional rights. Once you commit a crime and are caught, you give up many of your rights. That' the point of being punished. If you had nothing in your vehicle, then there should be no problem. Public Safety is a big concern within law enforcement these days. I am also not accusing you of a crime. As I said, exigent circumstances.

I have my own thoughts regarding the legislative branch of our federal government, specifically law enforcement, and they are pretty deep. If you understood them, you'd comprehend my stance a lot better. Maybe I'll make a new thread topic about it in another forum.

Maybe they don't, I can only go by what I've seen though. You're paid for say 4 hours of work but handed 10 hours of work and expected to somehow get it done. If you don't do it, you're out of a job. The job in question was being a tutor at a college. There would be more demand than there was funds to pay for it, but the college couldn't simply turn people away because that would reduce enrollment which would then reduce funding, which would then create a vicious circle of declining income. That's just the way these things work.

Your outlook and understanding of economics is corrosive. If you're finishing "10 hours of work in 4 hours", then it's not 10 hours of work, it's 4 hours of work. This part of the discussion is nothing but a matter of perception regarding the work-load. You're asking for higher wages and less work. That destroys the economy. That's the problem with today's generation. Today's youth expects a sense of entitlement and hand-outs. Expects to be given everything they'll ever need for doing nothing or minimal work. Those are the traits of socialism.

If we extrapolated your notion to a nationwide decision, the economy would collapse or inflation would be extremely exaggerated to balance the reduction in production and an increased or unchanging pay rate. This would equate to a surge in purchasing power, but less commodity and service available because of an inefficient work/labor-force. There's really no way that I can think of to offset this other than international thievery - that is, going to war with another country and plundering their resources or making them our slaves to keep the prices here at a livable level.

My entire goal and work-ethic at every job I've has has been about my productivity and my value. I do as much work as I can in the time allotted. I do not complain. If I want to be payed more for the amount of work that I do, then I should find another job. That's my thought process. Not one of victimization, one of self empowerment.

When it's an employers market in a small town that's simply not an option. If you report your employer you'll get the wages they owed you but you'll be out of a job and have a record of reporting your employer following you. That ensures you'll never get work again so you better hope they owe you a lot of money. Taking what is essentially a pay cut means you get something rather than nothing.

That's entirely untrue. You are protected in the EEOC from retribution/revenge. If you are fired for reporting an employer, then you can sue. Just be sure to document the events as well as possible and as legitimately as you can.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Both alcohol and marijuana are illegal.

the 18th amendment was repealed in 1933...alcohol is completely legal.

I'll never argue for making legit crime legal through citing constitutional rights

Nobody asked you to. all i think is being said, is that an officer can apparently do an end run around the constitution, by making up a story that they thought they smelled something....

in either event, simply claiming to have smelled something, should not be grounds to search a citizen's conveyance. if the officer thinks they smell alcohol, they can perform a field sobriety test...if you're loaded, you shouldn't be behind the wheel. but as the law is put together now, all an officer has to do is claim he smelled something, and they can violate your rights...

Public Safety is a big concern within law enforcement these days.

not really....it's only a "concern", because it's a perfect excuse for them to violate citizen's rights, and rob them. seatbelt tickets, when you were wearing one, speeding tickets when you weren't speeding, random pull-overs, when you weren't doing anything wrong, so they can LOOK for something to cite or ticket you for....the majority of them aren't interested in your safety, they're interested in your money, or making an arrest...

That's entirely untrue. You are protected in the EEOC from retribution/revenge. If you are fired for reporting an employer, then you can sue. Just be sure to document the events as well as possible and as legitimately as you can.

Or, they can make something up...OR, they can push you out of the company, by creating an impossible employment condition for you.....my last employer tried the first one, and backed off when i threatened to call my lawyer, and then they did the second one, and pushed me right out....i had no legal recourse, because they made it impossible for me to stick around, so it was either keep going until i go mad, or the fire me for poor performance, or walk away.....either way, i was gonna be out of there, it was just a matter of whether it happened on my terms, or theirs...

originally posted by: Daedalus

the 18th amendment was repealed in 1933...alcohol is completely legal.

Given the context of the circumstance I was in reference to. I'm not into playing semantics and taking things out of context.

Nobody asked you to. all i think is being said, is that an officer can apparently do an end run around the constitution, by making up a story that they thought they smelled something....

I never said anybody asked me to, I was just stating my position within the discussion...

in either event, simply claiming to have smelled something, should not be grounds to search a citizen's conveyance. if the officer thinks they smell alcohol, they can perform a field sobriety test...if you're loaded, you shouldn't be behind the wheel. but as the law is put together now, all an officer has to do is claim he smelled something, and they can violate your rights...

Well, if he smells alcohol, the potential legal implications are beyond a field sobriety test. You don't have to be drunk. It's illegal to have open alcohol containers in your vehicle.

Smell something or see something. It's not a violation of rights, but I understand, you're probably just outright anti-cop and anti-authority. It's a cop's job to enforce the law, not to cover his eyes, put ear plugs in his ears, cotton balls up his nose, all but entirely rendering his senses inert just so that you can be found innocent. If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't worry. The cop has to do its job.

not really....it's only a "concern", because it's a perfect excuse for them to violate citizen's rights, and rob them. seatbelt tickets, when you were wearing one, speeding tickets when you weren't speeding, random pull-overs, when you weren't doing anything wrong, so they can LOOK for something to cite or ticket you for....the majority of them aren't interested in your safety, they're interested in your money, or making an arrest...

I can't agree with your choice of words. You use "majority", where it's more logically appropriate to place "some".

Your use of wordage reveals a purely anti-cop bias. I can't have an honest discussion with you while you possess that mentality.

However, to address some of the content. It's my opinion that seat-belt laws should be done away with for adults. It's absurd to tell me that I can commit a crime against myself. I do not believe in crimes against the self, only against others.

Or, they can make something up...OR, they can push you out of the company, by creating an impossible employment condition for you.....my last employer tried the first one, and backed off when i threatened to call my lawyer, and then they did the second one, and pushed me right out....i had no legal recourse, because they made it impossible for me to stick around, so it was either keep going until i go mad, or the fire me for poor performance, or walk away.....either way, i was gonna be out of there, it was just a matter of whether it happened on my terms, or theirs...

You were not diligent and strong enough in pushing for legal recourse. Had you documented what was going on, reported it and took appropriate action, you'd of been fully protected. Yes, what they were doing may have been wrong, but the fault is on you if you didn't follow and take procedures to protect yourself. The law is set up for you, it's up to you to actualize it. That's in the past now.