You are patently incorrect. You'd do well to take a lesson in Constitutional Construction. Did you not notice the "," before "and no warrants shall issue".
You can stomp your feet all you want, you can take a tantrum if you like, you can scream like a petulant child, but the fact is your reading of the Constitution has been emphatically rejected, by both the people who wrote the Constitution, and those charged with interpreting it.
Go back and read Carroll v United States for a start.
Using Supreme Court rulings to prove what the US Constitution means? Yeah, I should let the likes of Sotomayer and Kagan define it for me. That’s sarcasm btw. The SCOTUS has shredded the constitution for a long, long time. It has ruled “public use” means government has the right to hand my private property to a private entity for virtually any reason whatsoever, “freedom of religion” means freedom from religion, “citizen” includes illegal aliens and enemy combatants, and searches are “reasonable” whenever Janet Napolitano thinks so.
Sorry, but I can read my constitution and my bible. I guess that makes me a bitter clinger, aka patriot.
[i]t would be intolerable and unreasonable if a prohibition agent were authorized to stop every automobile on the chance of finding liquor, and thus subject all persons lawfully using the highways to the inconvenience and indignity of such a search... . [T]hose lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a competent official, authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise
Tell me wher ethere is probable cause for believing that a 4 year old girl, or granny or a nun or a speedo-clad caucasian male with screw Janet Napolitano written on his back is carrying PETN in a body cavityl. Please please please tell us so we all can know. Please please please Mr. Lawman.