Replies

I believe you, but my opinion is that the bail bondsman rules are more an example of the government abusing the Constitution than people signing their rights away. Of course, I guess that since the people elect the congressmen that abuse the Constitution, and elect the presidents who appoint the SC Justices, we can say that in at least a collective sense the people are voluntarily giving up our rights. This view is certainly supported by the fact that most Americans not only don't care, but actively work to give the state more power/reduce their own rights.

But my opinion is still that, in spite of all the above, in spite of the fact that our rights have been drastically eroded by various means, an *individual* can not give up whatever Constitutional rights may remain to him. We may have given up much collectively, but we cannot give up such things on an individual basis.

I will admit, though, that I am not a lawyer or an expert of any kind.

I will cite a personal example.
Some years ago I leased a business property; in the lease were requirements that actually contained the wording that the "lessee agrees to give up any Constitutional rights" that may pertain, and that the lessor reserved the right to use violence if necessary" for the collection of rent. My attorney said not to worry, none of it was legal, you can't give up rights, you just have them, they can't use violence no matter what you sign, it ain't legal.

'Course, violating contracts are not legal either, but perhaps such a contract wouldn't hold water in the first place.

Your opinion on bondsmen may be due to some misconceptions you have about them. They don't work for the government. Basically they sell insurance policies. That's why a bail bond is properly known as a surety bond.

You basically are buying an insurance policy for the Court. If you don't show up, the bondsman forfeits the entire amount of the policy to the Court. If you abscond, the bondsman has the legal right to see that the surety bond is enforced.

IMO it's a classic case of the free market doing something more efficiently than Government.

The Consitution is there to restrain Government, not to restrain people. People sign away their rights all the time.

In the case that you mentioned where a party to a contract is claiming the right to use violence against you, I would never sign such an instrument. I probably wouldn't use any lawyer who told me 'not to worry about it', either.

Just my two cents.