Least Effective Question Presented, part I

From a recent(ish) cert. petition:

(1) Was St. George Tucker correct when he told his William & Mary law students circa 1803 that all searches and seizures were considered general warrants and thus unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless based upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized, or, in the alternative, did this court correctly interpret the Fourth Amendment when it decided that businesses in a “pervasively regulated” industry may be searched without a warrant? (2) If St. George Tucker was correct, should this court overrule New York v. Burger?