I imagine if it did, we'd still be having a similar discussion. Without certain events by the court that reset or reaffirm interpretations, Constitutional "wand

I imagine if it did, we'd still be having a similar discussion. Without certain events by the court that reset or reaffirm interpretations, Constitutional "wandering" can run amok (see Interstate Commerce Clause and the War on Drugs). District of Columbia v. Heller comes to mind, where the court confirmed a particular reading of the Second Amendment. In 50 years they'll probably have to reaffirm it again. Or they could go a different way... I can easily imagine a bizzaro world where the Fourth Amendment does contain the word privacy, and the court has had to reaffirm or reinterpret what "privacy" means in context over and over. PS - best comment of the night, nitrogen.