“That Exclusionary Rule exists because the Framers quite properly understood that allowing law enforcement to torture confessions from the accused could never be mitigated by holding the police responsible, post conviction, for their own criminality”
searches of property, requiring a warrant and/or not requiring a warrant is NOT a confession by torture, and the extension from that to all else the courts have dreamed up on the issue is their invention, not whatthem we the people made or asked for;
THAT IS the issue, and I am sure if we the people wrote a law concerning prosecuting, making criminal, acts of illegal searches, we would do so in a manner that REQUIRED them AND did not demand any evidence be kept from a court, a jury because of them
THE FIFTH Amendment IS AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE, governing a very specific kind of evidence.
The point of talking about the Exclusionary nature of The FIFTH Amendment, was to point out to you that because of law enforcement abuses under the Common Law, the Framers correctly understood that the most efficacious way to forbid torture was to moot its exercise, and not to take the same route that the Common Law took with respect to other types of evidence illegally obtained.
The Founders did not do everything correctly. The General Welfare Clause should have been written in a way that made Madison's understanding of it more explicit: that it was intended as an additional limitation on the the already limited authority of Congress, and not as a blank check for legislative adventurism.
We now know, in hindsight, that the Necessary and Proper Clause should have been worded in such a way that no idiot could misconstrue its meaning to suggest that Congress had a plenary power to tax, provided only that the taxation was required to fund legislation; that was not its intent.
The version of the Second Amendment advanced by Jefferson is the one that should have been used: "No Freeman Shall Ever Be Debarred the Use of Arms." Accepting that version would have short-circuited a great deal of liberal mischief and outright deliberately destructive malfeasance.
It's very clear that the Founders also made a mess of the process of selecting the President, which they quickly attempted to rectify.
They should also have explicitly limited judicial review to administrative remedy only, and not given the power to create Federal law to John Marshall and his ideological descendants.
And there are several other examples...
That all said, I agree with you that the Exclusionary Rule for all types of evidence should have entered Federal law via a Constitutional Amendment, and not case law [read: a majority of Justices' whims.] But I don't accept the claim that the status quo ante was a better remedy. Even if it once was, [it wasn't] it's clear that our police and secret police forces are now doing things which would absolutely have horrified the Framers, and their law-breaking cannot be tolerated.
So, YES, The Federal judiciary erred in 1914, and erred again in 1961. But the remedy was superior to the one that existed in the Common Law, and should have been in the Constitution to begin with.