[El Gato]

The distinction that in 1792 only white male landowners were “the people” is not in question.

So women, especially single women, including widows, had no right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

It was an irrelevant tangent to the argument. RP threw it up there as a red herring.

He created a distracting fact that people would argue against that would take away attention from the true thrust of his opponents arguments.

[robertpaulsen]

"So women, especially single women, including widows, had no right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"?"

They had the right. I said the 4th amendment didn't protect that right from federal infringement. The U.S. Supreme Court said exactly the same thing. Twice.

What's you're problem? If you're saying that right was protected from federal infringement, let's see some support for that statement.