Consbreastutional rights was: breastle screen for HLA Adventure

I

That's a very bizarre interpretation. The text of the 4th seems fairly clear:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, HOUSES, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

(emphasis added)

The use of the word "houses" clearly does not simply mean that a person cannot himself or herself be seized when residing in the house, since a person typically NEVER resides in papers and effects. The amendment clearly means that government is not allowed to unreasonably search or seize either the person OR their property.

Several online papers analyzing the Fourth Amendment go into detail about its effect restricting seizure of property, e.g., ttp:--caselaw.lp.findlaw.com-data-consbreastution-amendment04-02.html#6

You're arguing that the government has the power to take property for public use but not for private use. The 5th amendment does not grant either power to the government; it is a restriction on exercise of such power, which must have been granted by the people to the government elsewhere in the Consbreastution. Yet I can't find anything granting either power.

The government is supposed to have only the powers granted to it by the people. They aren't supposed to have arbitrary and unlimited powers subject only to a few restrictions in the Consbreastution. That is the point of Article 1 Section 8, and is further clarified by the Tenth Amendment. The lack of a provision in the Consbreastution as amended granting the government a specific power means that the government does NOT have that power.

Of course, the fact that the government does not officially have a certain power doesn't directly stop them from exercising that power. The people have to use the courts to curtail such things.

Eric