No it doesn't. A right that is not absolute is still a right.
Our rights are descended from God, and are absolute. Our forefathers understood that.
As a result, with inspiration from God, they wrote one of the greatest documents in the history of the world, second only to the Bible. The focus of that document was/is to place restraints on government.
What tet68 correctly recognized (I believe) was that by allowing the government to establish these Unconstitutional stops we are allowing the corruption of that inspired document.
We do so at great peril to ourselves and our children.
You are failing to grasp the difference between privileges and rights. Trial by jury is guaranteed in the Constitution. It is a right and may not be infringed. A privilege OTOH is a favor granted to you by the state. A government funded education is a privilege; the right against self-incrimination is just that - a right.
Nowadays, when the state grants you a trial by jury for a crime with a maximum punishment of less than six months it is considered a privilege. The state may revoke that privilege at any time. The fact that they often grant the privilege does not change the fact that that is what it now is.
Now that the state’s gun laws have failed to stem crime (in fact they have done just the opposite) some Boston city officials are scrambling to come up with an answer. In a recent interview, Mayor Menino actually suggested that the State Police start conducting random searches at the state border.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1539551/posts
By opening the door to unconstitutional random DU stops 'for the saftey of the driving public', we now have officials who see they can trample our Second Amendment rights using that same small hole in the dike.
Failing to act to protect our God given rights against overly intrusive government officals is deadly.
We have been allowed to build the greatest, kindest, most generous society that has ever existed on the face of the earth. We need to be bold in our protection of it.