> That argument might actually hold up with the current originalist Supreme Court. It's worth pursuing. There are upsides to constitutional originalism. There's no reason the Fourth Amendment shouldn't be taken as literally as the Second.

You are confusing originalism with textualism (there is an argument that the current Court’s dominant philosophy [or mode of rationalization, for the more cynical] is both originalist and textualist, but your particular argument is more of an appeal to textualism than originalism.)