No it doesn't; the preamble to the Bill of Rights says clearly what the purpose of the Bill of Rights is:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.The whole purpose is to restrain the government; if we were to let the government ignore those restrictions at it pleases then there is nothing to stop the government from enacting tyranny. — IOW, what you are conditionally agreeing to is the polar opposite of the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I'm not agreeing to it, I'm merely observing what it is. The government breaks the constitutional pact with impunity, and uses hand-waving as a front.
The government already ignores the restrictions, while claiming to be abiding by them. The same words are used to justify deliberately unequal application of the law (elites get away with things the serfs and peons are jailed for), and outright violation of the principles embodied in the Constitution. The government snoops at will, without warrant, and if it needs to justify it, it will try. worst that happens if it fails to justify it is the court tosses the evidence.