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.
L
Just my 2 cents as well.
I understand that bail bondsmen are not government workers (my sister in law was one for awhile), though I think it could still be argued that they are in a sense, agents of the government. Anyhow, their contracts are a special thing, applied to those who would otherwise be behind bars. I don't think the bail bond thing means that a Muslim American citizen could sign away his consitutional rights permanently in the manner suggested.
I think you are correct that my then attorney shouldn't have so cavalierly let me sign the lease, though I imagine he was right that it wouldn't hold water. But why get near such a thing in the first place? I always thought my landlord was a nice guy, but in retrospect, considering that document, maybe not to everyone.
I do understand that the Constitution is primarily a positive document directed toward the power of government, with the Bill of Rights thrown in to satisfy detractors more than to define our rights.