What you call a stupid formality, many call an unalienable right.
Take that right away, and ask me to fight for my country. I won't.
Do you think the "Constitutional" guarantee against profiling is really in the Constitution?
Yes, I do. Here's how:
Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No probable cause, no warrant, no search.
A profile is not probable cause. Not by any stretch of logic. You can't adhere to the 4th Amendment while searching at will, anyone who 'fits the description' (which is exactly what profiling is). You must have probable cause to link an individual to a crime. Then you have to take this probable cause before a judge to get a warrant.
Probable cause is not how someone looks. It isn't their ethnicity, it isn't their age. It is actions that are indicative of a crime. Do you think the 4th Amendment allows a search of everyones house under 30 years of age for drugs, because those are the individuals most likely to have them?
No nation that can rightfully call itself free can go without such protections. And a nation that tries to will not have my help or loyalty. I wouldn't lift a finger to protect a government that would do such a thing. In fact, if any effort is to be expended at all, it would be to remove those people from office, and restore the Constitution.
Where do you even get a warrant requirement to search? I can assure you that when it was adopted, no such requirement was thought to be present.
At the time -- and for years afterward -- no warrant was thought to be necessary for a search. But, I hear you ask, what about the bit about "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched..."?
At the time, an officer could be sued for false arrest or for a unreasonable search or seizure. A warrant was merely an insurance policy. If the officer had a warrant, he couldn't be sued. If he searched without a warrant, he risked being sued. Of course, if he found evidence of a crime, the search wasn't considered "unreasonable". How could it be?
At some point, the law evolved to give federal officers immunity from such suits. That's when the courts started invention things like the exclusionary rule and rules against "profiling".
Personally, I think the country would be better served with the original method.
By the way, you should also note that the 4th Amendment cannot be legitimately applied to the states.