This raises a question. Will the Court give up:
1. Bad legal history.N.B. If Professor Davies has his history right in the main (and I strongly suspect he does), the Court's current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence cannot be defended on the ground that it comports with, if not the letter, then the spirit of the Framers' view of the purposes of the Fourth Amendment; the Court has instead poured new wine into new bottles.
2. Legal History.
3. Subscriptions to journals with good legal history.