[robertpaulsen]

The fact that the 4th amendment worked just fine for 200 years and only recently has been called into question tells me the problem lies not with the amendment but with the fairly recent interpretation.

I suppose you blame the founders for the wording of the Commerce Clause or for the penumbras found in the emanations of the due process clause which, as a "right to privacy", protects abortions (or sodomy) from federal or state sanctions.

The wording is just fine.

[Just another Joe]

The fact that the 4th amendment worked just fine for 200 years and only recently has been called into question tells me the problem lies not with the amendment but with the fairly recent interpretation.

The "Living Constitution" argument.
I tend to agree with you that it is the recent interpretations that have failed, not the amendment itself but why did the interpretations come about?
The WOD. That tells me that something with that particular initiative stinks.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The fact that the 4th amendment worked just fine for 200 years and only recently has been called into question tells me the problem lies not with the amendment but with the fairly recent interpretation.

Really? You don't say.

I suppose you blame the founders for the wording of the Commerce Clause or for the penumbras found in the emanations of the due process clause which, as a "right to privacy", protects abortions (or sodomy) from federal or state sanctions.

No, I blame statist-oriented politicians, lawyers, judges, and other assorted power mongers for expanding and stretching the meaning of the Commerce Clause into something the Founding Fathers clearly never intended it to mean. Further, I blame righteous types such as you for not only allowing it to happen, but cheerleading for it, esp. w/r/t the War on Drugs.