I received a hit to this oldie but goodie that is apropos to the thread cited earlier with comments about privacy and oh look that conservative martyr, Robert Bork. Oh well, let me reprint what I said about the former.
Any number of constitutional rights today are not of the same nature in various respects as they were for much of our nation's history. For instance, "religion" was originally generally given a fairly narrow definition, but today it is understood to have a much broader meaning. The basic concept of religion all the same was known then and now.
The core aspects of "privacy" as understood today aren't merely contemporary. The right to privacy over beliefs, family life, property and so forth was well expressed in the Founding Era in various ways. General warrants were deemed so offensive in part because it was an invasion of the home and the privacies therein. Religious belief and private morality was a major matter of importance. The right to choose one's own way in life was deemed a major point of coming to America. John Adams and others honored the privacy of family life. Many "zones of privacy" such as in marriage, over children, in the confessional, with one's lawyer etc. have had a long history. And so on.
As with other constitutional principles, the principle developed over time. Brandeis noted as such in his famous article. And, Bork and others don't like that approach. But, even citing the original understanding, and various originalists have, "privacy rights" would be protected. The replies by "ackerman" are well worth reading, including his use of "asseverations."
The Bork matter can be read there. No Jetsons spacecraft in the 21st Century but tired old arguments from two decades ago linger on. There's always something to fall back upon.
Through much or our nation's history, what we today think of as "privacy" just didn't exist. So would the Constitution enshrine a "right" unknown to the society that produced the document? Would not a right which is, as you say, "fundamental to a free society," be preserved in the Bill of Rights?I am not sure of the breadth of this statement.
Any number of constitutional rights today are not of the same nature in various respects as they were for much of our nation's history. For instance, "religion" was originally generally given a fairly narrow definition, but today it is understood to have a much broader meaning. The basic concept of religion all the same was known then and now.
The core aspects of "privacy" as understood today aren't merely contemporary. The right to privacy over beliefs, family life, property and so forth was well expressed in the Founding Era in various ways. General warrants were deemed so offensive in part because it was an invasion of the home and the privacies therein. Religious belief and private morality was a major matter of importance. The right to choose one's own way in life was deemed a major point of coming to America. John Adams and others honored the privacy of family life. Many "zones of privacy" such as in marriage, over children, in the confessional, with one's lawyer etc. have had a long history. And so on.
As with other constitutional principles, the principle developed over time. Brandeis noted as such in his famous article. And, Bork and others don't like that approach. But, even citing the original understanding, and various originalists have, "privacy rights" would be protected. The replies by "ackerman" are well worth reading, including his use of "asseverations."
The Bork matter can be read there. No Jetsons spacecraft in the 21st Century but tired old arguments from two decades ago linger on. There's always something to fall back upon.