> The police and the judge who issued the warrant followed current Virginia law.

But the Supremacy Clause says the Constitution overrides Virginia law.

If we decide the Fourth Amendment applies here, Virginia law loses.

> If we decide the Fourth Amendment applies here, Virginia law loses.

Yes, but the only way to do that is to say that the dead hand of the founders overrules current Virginia law. The plaintiffs want James Madison from his grave to impose restrictions on the police that voters in Virginia in 2026 have declined to impose.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s how it works.

Virginia voters similarly can’t legalize slavery or ban the New York Times. The age of the restriction is irrelevant.

▲

rayiner 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The age of the restriction is irrelevant.

Not according to the comment I was responding to: "Has anything changed since the sacred texts were written or we just going to keep acting as though we can never adjust the laws."

	▲	ceejayoz 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There's more than one bit of flow chart here. Things can change in a way that's covered by the Constitution. Say, technology that makes Fourth Amendment violations easier to do; still potentially covered! Things can change in a way that's not covered by the Constitution. Now you need an amendment. The Fourth Amendment is quite broad and can thus handle all sorts of change.

▲

shadowgovt 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You are both correct, but rayiner's comment goes to the up-thread rhetorical question:

> Has anything changed since the sacred texts were written or we just going to keep acting as though we can never adjust the laws

... the answer is "Oh boy, Chatrie sure does hope nothing has changed, and the Founders would have hated geofencing had they had any way to know what it was! Otherwise, the laws passed in the past 50 years say it's legal and fine."