[tahiti]

"If you make the Constitution so specific that they have no wiggle room, then you've lessoned the effectiveness of the Constitution by narrowing its scope,"

But since the Constitution was meant to "limit" GOVERNMENT, not citizens, don't we want it to be specific?

I think that was the idea of the phrase in Amendment I,

"Congress shall make no law..."

in Amemdment IX,

"...shall not...deny or disparage..."

even Amendment XIV

"No State shall make or enforce any law..."

So, that is why I would like to see "sharper" language inserted in Amendment IV.

[NJ_gent]

The base of the Constitution enumerated the powers of the Federal government, thus limiting (at least in theory) both its scope and its power. The Bill of Rights was put in specifically to protect certain rights that were regularly walked upon under Crown rule. The quartering of troops was a big problem for colonials living under Crown rule and makes no sense at all to people today. Of course, if the Federal government had an army regiment bust down doors in suburban Philadelphia looking for places to crash for the night, it'd start making a lot more sense.

"So, that is why I would like to see "sharper" language inserted in Amendment IV"

You're looking for more forceful, as opposed to more specific language then. A plaintext reading of IV, IX, and X shows them to be incredibly powerful. For that matter, II is rather strong. They're just ignored, so changing the language to make them sound more firm isn't going to help in my opinion. The sentiment of each Amendment is correct. What's missing are consequences. The trick is how to set up a system where consequences are real for people in control of the government at the time. We the people certainly don't provide consequences. It's like asking a child to punish himself whenever he sneaks into the kitchen to steal a cookie. What's he going to do? Send himself to his room... with the cookie.