You are being purposefully obtuse and I have no more time to waste today. You lose councilor.
No, I am making a point, which you do not wish to accept because it undercuts your entire argument: the Constitution, and law generally, almost always require interpretation when being applied to all but the simplest of facts.
It does not take any interpretation to conclude that the police cannot rifle through a person’s private diary, written on paper, under the Fourth Amendment. It takes a great deal of interpretation to conclude that the cops cannot hook onto electric wires owned by an independent third party, record the signals passing through those wires, and convert them into sound waves to hear what one person is saying to another through the phone system.