[mountainbunny]

Do you consider conditional access to a court house or air plane as being different than an ad hoc declaration of conditional access to entire sections cities or uber-rich liberal vacation islands?

We have a much firmer basis for having exercisable rights in a truly public place (City Hall is a public place) than a private place (any restaurant). You have an option in the restaurant if the Secret Service shows up and wants your phone: get up, walk out, eat elsewhere. You have many fewer options at City Hall. If you have to pay your taxes or get a deed, you can't go to another City Hall.

I don't pretend to think that I have magical rights that trump the property owner's. If he wants the President there, and you don't like it, get up and leave.

[meyer]

You have an option in the restaurant if the Secret Service shows up and wants your phone: get up, walk out, eat elsewhere.

Only if the owner of the property agrees with the secret service. Picture this scenario - I own a restaurant. The President wants to eat there. I'm OK with that (well, maybe not this president). His agents want my guests to give up their cell phones before he arrives. I disagree with his agents. He can either go elsewhere and eat or put up with other patrons that carry cell phones. The secret service does not have overriding jurisdiction over the property owner for non-lethal devices like cell phones (and cameras as are mentioned in the articles).

[Natural Law]

"I don't pretend to think that I have magical rights that trump the property owner's." Again, isn't this or shouldn't this be governed by the takings clause and require due process? The drafter of this clause, James Madison, opined: “A Government is instituted to protect property of every sort . . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” If there is value to being in Martha's Vineyard, as is evidenced by the presence of the POTUS and his fat-cat buddies for a high end vacation, being in the location has a value. If access is denied or limited, the value is diminished and constitutes a taking.....right?