4 ms·

The West Wing on privacy (1999)

7 points by LukeHoersten 13y ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745704/ I'm amazed at how accurate this scene from 1999, 14 years ago, predicted today.

iandanforth 13y ago
I always loved this scene from that episode discussing if the 4th amendment includes an implied right to personal privacy: SAM In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. One member of the Georgia delegation had to stay by way of opposition: 'If we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no longer. The framers knew...' HARRISON Were you just calling me a fool, Mr. Seaborn? SAM I wasn't calling you a fool, sir, the brand new state of Georgia was.
- iandanforth 13y ago
  Adding a bit: Here is a real quote from Alexander Hamilton. Less pithy but more powerful. "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss7.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_ri...
LukeHoersten 13y ago
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745704/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745704/ 1999. Amazing.

7 points by LukeHoersten 13y ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745704/ I'm amazed at how accurate this scene from 1999, 14 years ago, predicted today.

I always loved this scene from that episode discussing if the 4th amendment includes an implied right to personal privacy: SAM In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. One member of the Georgia delegation had to stay by way of opposition: 'If we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no longer. The framers knew...' HARRISON Were you just calling me a fool, Mr. Seaborn? SAM I wasn't calling you a fool, sir, the brand new state of Georgia was.

iandanforth 13y ago
Adding a bit: Here is a real quote from Alexander Hamilton. Less pithy but more powerful. "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss7.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_ri...

LukeHoersten 13y ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745704/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745704/ 1999. Amazing.