You are contesting your interpretation of the Fifth Amendment with the interpretation and precedents set by the Courts over the last 200 years. I admire the spunk. You can disagree with the interpretations, but until there is legal precedent to support your interpretation, I hope you understand that I won't be paying you a retainer to serve as my lawyer.

In the pictograph, the ID's they are referring to are government-issued photo ID's such as driver's license, passport, green card, etc. - basically the same documents you would have to show to board a commercial flight. If you don't have them, it just makes things more suspicious for you, as law enforcement has a legal and legitimate need to establish identity (thus the Burkha controversy). Remember, until you prove that you are a US citizen, you are NOT protected by the Fifth Amendment.

what's the threat? just because someone is illegally in your country does not mean they have committed harm or force against your collective notion of country. Your remedy does not fit the "crime"

No, it does not, but last I heard powers not granted to the feds belong to the state.

This is incorrect. Some Constitutional provisions apply to all people because they are rights deemed to be independent of and expressly separated from government, such as freedom of expression, self-defense, etc. Others like the Fifth Amendment are protections from Government only unconditionally granted to Citizens of the United States. Look for phrases like "shall not be infringed" as a key.

You accurately point out several unmistakably gray areas, it is true. What should not be misunderstood or overlooked, however, arises from the term "implied consent". Implied consent arises in many circumstances in public where searches are permissible without a specific warrant. Implied consent happens at large sporting events, concerts, and especially border crossings and during air travel. Implied consent voids the need for a warrant.

Please note that I am not advocating for or against these policies, merely pointing out that the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment by courts has established these precedents and that we should be aware of them. In their interpretations, the Courts have generally weighed the needs to preserve individual rights "to be secure in their persons and possessions" against reasonable accommodations for law enforcement, but there is certainly much wiggle room afforded due to the ambiguousness of the word "reasonable".

And yes, I was one of those who after 9/11 cheered the passage of the Patriot Act - before I really understood what was in it. Now, I look at it as a law with severe flaws (as the Courts have thrown out several overreaching provisions) and still others with which I have severe reservations. I think that it - like a lot of complex laws - would be better if written to address one thing at a time. I strongly prefer specific, targeted laws to these ambiguous monstrosities (see ACA) for the simple expedient that I do not believe government is made up of less fallible or more logical people than the rest of us. ;)

Perhaps. The state law here provides for them and also says that a valid DL must be presented upon request. The justification I got when I asked was that driving is that owning an automobile for private use on private land is a right, but having a DL and operating a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege. I then asked the question if a person is randomly stopped while walking do they have to produce ID, their answer was no.

"I missed this part of the Constitution, could you please point to it for me?"

See the following pictograph for more:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/...

A judge does not have to issue a warrant for many kinds of searches conducted by police officers, including plain sight and consensual searches. A warrant for arrest also includes search provisions. You may also be searched without a warrant if caught in the commission of a crime. Even reasonable suspicion caused by things out in the open can subject you to a warrantless search of a limited degree because it then grants reasonable suspicion.

The Fifth Amendment provides a basic foundation for law, but I advise against relying on its literal words in place of legal precedent.

ah...aiding/feeding the enemy...nice.

This guy has nerve....and a hearty thank you and salute from here. A dozen people like him working in different parts of the country and filming their efforts could be an excellent "check and balance" to the system which is closing in on us.

wow. I know that border guard at 2:00 in on this video, having crossed that checkpoint dozens of times! I've probably crossed some of the others in this vid as well. it's so dumb-you are asked if your're a citizen and if you're carrying anybody in your vehicle they can't see and if the kids in the backseat are yours. it's outrageous and annoying in the extreme.

I've never been stopped, or even seen a check point, but I'm pretty well North of the border and don't travel outside of my cocoon much. People in AZ don't travel to Mexico like they used to, say, 15-20 years ago. It used to be the thing to do, not anymore.

These no-man's land areas (roughly 100 miles inside the border) have all sorts of caveats -of course the these laws are to keep you safe. Some were recently passed as part of the Patriot Act. You are searched without warrant by the TSA in the Airport as well. Did you support passage of the Patriot Act? I know lots of Conservatives who back it to this day. these laws keep us safe. Ostensibly these stops and searches are to keep illegal aliens form entering the country. Some illegals are found in vehicles or under vehicles at these stops. Is it worth the loss of a US citizen's rights? No way.

As the laws currently stand, police may set up checkpoints/roadblocks at random wherever they want, but they have to cite the purpose for which they are doing so and must conduct their stops without targeting. That pretty much means that they stop anyone and everyone, but because they do not have warrants for specific vehicles, all searches must be "plain sight" searches, ie they can not force you out of the car or force you to open your trunk, though they can ask. If they see something suspicious, however, like an open container of liquor, medication bottles, weapons, drug paraphernalia, etc. they can initiate a forced search without a warrant because now they have "probably cause" or reasonable suspicion - both important legal justifications under the Fifth Amendment.

Please note that the DHS plays by different rules. The Courts have limited where DHS roadblocks can be set up, but their searches do not need warrants and they can do a full search at will. They can temporarily confiscate electronic devices to examine their contents, as well, though that is under legal review.

In both cases, be polite and respectful. Don't have anything to hide and don't lie. You don't have to allow a search of your trunk without asking the officer to state their probable cause and you can respectfully decline to allow a search without a warrant for police, but not for DHS. Be knowledgeable of the gun laws of the state you are in, as some like DC are extremely strict (ie ridiculous) and can get you hit with a Federal firearms violation.