Maggie's Farm

Just as the Second Amendment does not protect your right to a machine gun (since the Founders had no way of knowing such a thing would exist and if they had, they certainly would have made an exception for them), the Fourth makes no mention of wired or wireless communication so they aren't covered either, right?

It's clear you can't read any better than some judges and justices. Nor can you see the logic of my point.

WRT 2A, there is substantial opinion that since machine guns weren't invented yet, that they aren't covered under it. There is also substantial opinion that the 2A only applies to hunting (not military style) firearms or that it only applies to the National Guard and not to the general public. Then in '39, the SCOTUS ruled in Miller that his sawed off shotgun was illegal because it was NOT a military weapon. Somehow this did not invalidate the NFA even though it addressed machine guns which are military weapons. All these opinions are in spite of the clear wording of the amendment ("... the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.")

My point with the 2A is that it does not address machine guns but the prevailing thought (especially on the left) is that machine guns are not protected, in part, because they are not mentioned in the amendment (this in spite of the fact that the primary purpose of the 2A was as a counter to a government that tried to exceed its bounds.

Similarly, the 4A does not mention wireless or even wired communication (since you quoted the amendment, I would have thought that was obvious to you). Yet the amendment is widely understood to apply to both (though there are Democrats who think the 1A doesn't fully apply to wireless communication ([url]https://heatst.com/politics/former-fec-chairwoman-calls-for-regulations-of-political-speech-on-the-internet/ [/url] so one might be forgiven for thinking they don't really respect the 4A with respect to wired or wireless communication).

This being said, the 4A is a shadow of its former self. For example the IRS can call you in for an audit where you are required to produce personal papers (you know, the papers that are supposed to be secured from the government by the 4A) without having to produce probable cause of a law being broken to a judge in order to get a warrant as clearly required by the amendment.

So my overall point is that in the case of the 2A, things that are not mentioned are considered to be excluded but in the case of the 4A, things that are not mentioned are considered to be included.

By trying to pick apart part of my comment, you show you are not interested in the overall point I was making (spelled out at the end of my post).

But since you want to go there...

Z: The argument nearly always has had to do with the intended purpose of the Second Amendment, including reasonable firepower for that purpose.

I've already said that the purpose of the 2A is not strictly self defense, but that the government not have a monopoly on power and the citizens would be able to overthrow an abusive government. That is clear from the debate on the amendments. The prohibition on machine guns that I mentioned comes from the NFA which makes no sense after Miller.

Z: [WRT 4A] It has to do with the intended purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which concerns a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't. I'm arguing that as new technologies arrive, the 4A expands (as it should) but the 2A does not (but it should or be amended).

Z: There's an amendment concerning the income tax.

16A does not preclude other rights such as the right to privacy. It also does not prescribe an enforcement mechanism.

The Fourth has been ignored at least since the IRS started auditing taxpayers.