[mrsmith]

But we always have allowed it.

Presidents did it, and much more dangerous investigatory practises, under their Article II power to "repel sudden attacks" and to deal with foreign agents.

Until Nixon it was done without any judicial or legislative review.

It was allowed under the previous law this one amended.

The "reasonableness" of national security investigations have been held to a different standard than criminal ones for obvious constitutional and objective reasons- whatever one may think of their wisdom.

[inquest]

But we always have allowed it.

So?

The "reasonableness" of national security investigations have been held to a different standard than criminal ones for obvious constitutional and objective reasons- whatever one may think of their wisdom.

Whoever's doing this "holding" isn't following the Constitution. The 4th amendment itself describes what it means by reasonable searches and seizures. Why would it place all these conditions on the issuance of a warrant only to go ahead and allow searches without any warrant at all?