Then you should read the word "unreasonable" just before "search and seizure".
It then goes on to prescribe the conditions for issuance of a warrant, "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."
This language was chosen specifically to prohibit issuance and execution of general warrants, i.e., searches not based on any probable cause nor looking for any particular person or item of evidence or contraband. It was included precisely because of abuses by the Crown's Officers. You should read more history.
Is my name on that warrant? How about my vehicle? I didn't think so. It is a general warrant.
How about that probable cause? Oh, you've detained 5,000 vehicles and made twenty DUI arrests. Congratulations, but in what parallel universe is a 0.4% likelihood considered probable?
That judges have upheld it is beyond dispute, just as Dred Scott was ruled and held sway for better than half a century. Judges have a duty to rule according to the Constitution and statutes and know which takes precedence. Hint, it's the former. Just because they have ruled so doesn't make it lawful. Inability or unwillingness to read and comprehend written English is not an affirmative defense. I'll offer into evidence our illustrious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, motion for summary judgment and rest my case.