> "The main issue here is that it's legislation covering cases not covered by the 4th amendment" The cases are only uncovered by the fourth if we accept a narr

> "The main issue here is that it's legislation covering cases not covered by the 4th amendment" The cases are only uncovered by the fourth if we accept a narrow reading which somehow determines that "your papers" only applies to physical pieces of paper and that "be secure" only applies if the citizen would be deprived of access in the course of the search. Those distinctions make no sense and, if applied, make the fourth amendment wholly technologically obsoleted in the very near future. Is it a remotely logical position to argue that the founders were really concerned about government searches, seizures and surveillance, but only inasmuch as people were inconvenienced by those searches, seizures and surveillance? That provided the English could have searched, seized and surveilled quickly, efficiently and entirely-on-the-sly the Revolutionaries wouldn't have been so hot about the issue?