>See 4th amendment
>
>How is it an unreasonable search or seizure to prevent somebody placing everybody else in danger?

Who determines what's dangerous? Smoking outside? Fatty foods? Banana peels? Our rights are not meant to be subject to the whims of the times. That's why they're in the Constitution, so they're VERY difficult for the State to circumvent.

>As I keep saying, the Bill of Rights is not designed to absolutely protect a "Nation of one person only."

Wrong! The Bill of Rights is set up to protect the individual from the State. Other laws are set up to protect individuals from others but not the Bill of Rights.

>Driving is a privilege not a right.
>
>Where does that go? Being safe on the road is a privilege as well?

Being safe on the road is a responsibility which comes with the privilege of driving.

>Confiscatory laws are harmful to everyone because they empower the current short-sighted stewards of the State to incrementally erode the Constitution in the name of the "greater good" thereby justifying the next set of short-sighted stewards to do the same.
>
>That's just a slogan. For the 4th time: if one tyrannical person insists they have the "right" to run red lights, how will you protect the community from them?

I don't care what rights the driver claims to have, only what the constitution guarantees. If the driver breaks the law then he should be tried, convicted and punished accordingly. However, that punishment must not violate the Constitution. Seizure of an automobile for a moving violation is unreasonable which is the key.

>It's easy to snipe from the sidelines, so how about a solution that cannot be conveniently shot down by asserting it violates the constitution?

You're the one advocating the violations, I'm merely pointing them out.

>If the State can willfully violate the Constitution in the name of the "greater good" there is no line It cannot cross. That's the danger and why our rights must be protected and fought for regardless of one's personal position on a particular issue.
>
>This is a circular slogan. Please see above. How can government protect "the people" as opposed to "the person" who apparently has widespread constitutional rights that your argument requires to overwhelm the rights of everybody else?

Our Constitutional rights are limited and well known.

>I have certain problems with jailing procedures do to a lack of conviction, but aside from those I feel there is justification for temporary incarceration pending investigation, arraignment and trial.
>
>By your own debating mechanism, confiscating the freedom and pursuit of happiness "violates" the constitution. QED.

See unreasonable. Why set the limit at confiscation of their car? There should be no limit to the power of the State in the name of the greater good, so by your logic people can be put to death for jaywalking.

Note life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights endowed by our creator according to the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution.