Why make footnotes consisting of URLs in writing for the Web? Make links out of them, so the reader can follow up with a click. What possible benefit accrues from making reading harder?

One half-baked law review article doesn't make a "what scholars are calling." As we discussed, the meaning of the word "search" has changed. The whole business of marching up one side of the hill and down the other in the Michigan law review means no more than that. Calling the assembly of knowledge in another man's brain (silicon or carbon) a "search" is not going to make the constitutional provision work any better than calling the defense budget "quartering."

This draft's primary problem was that it spent all but the last paragraph on explaining a problem and that last paragraph advertising a law review article which somehow contained a magic alternative. But the problem was the problem I spent two weeks explaining, and the magic solution is just another lengthy way of explaining with many footnotes and a delicious obtuseness the same problem all over again. What would make the most improvement in the draft would be to shorten the explanation of the problem, on which we can agree, and to offer some actual (not taken from Kerr) suggestions about decisions the courts could make, probable or improbable politically as they may be, but sound legally, for the retention of constitutional integrity.