I was waiting for someone to spot that--most haven't even bothered to read the fourth amendment, so they missed the obvious weasel word. By your interpretation, the government can violate the fourth amendment whenever they say it's reasonable of them to do so. The only problem with that interpretation, of course, is that the framers wrote the amendment to limit federal authority; and a limit that gets to be decided upon by the feds themselves is no limit at all.
It's not a weasel word. It's common sense to use flexible terms in cases where discretion may be required.
By your interpretation, the government can violate the fourth amendment whenever they say it's reasonable of them to do so.
By definition, it's not a violation if it's reasonable. It's not just the government that decides that, of course. The courts have a role, but so do we.
Most people are upset now because they don't know all the details, and don't feel like they really understand the issue. So long as the government is found to have been doing it's best to only target Al Qaida, and kept the program secret to make it an effective tool to save lives, then most people, given the situation, will find that reasonable. I'm sure that this kind of flexibility is exactly as the Founders intended.
The only problem with that interpretation, of course, is that the framers wrote the amendment to limit federal authority; and a limit that gets to be decided upon by the feds themselves is no limit at all.
Yes, to limit it by situation (hence the 'weasel wording'). The speed limit may be 25mph in some places, and 70mph in others. The fact that it's not always the same standard in every case doesn't make different speed limits a bad idea.