*
*
Search:
*
Check neighborhood listings
*
*
*
*
Explore by topicThe Court and DemocracyLaw, strength & PersonalityThe very first Hundred YearsCapitalism and Conflict broadening Civil RightsThe Future that the Court
*
*
*



You are watching: Which statement best describes the griswold v. connecticut case?

*
*
*
*
*

*
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court determined a constitutionally safeguarded right to privacy, which the court reasoned prohibited claims from denying birth regulate to married couples. Above, a man protests external a to plan Parenthood clinic in new Haven, Connecticut. Reproduction courtesy of Corbis Images
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
*
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the supreme Court ruled the a state"s half on the use of contraceptives violated the best to marital privacy. The case pertained to a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or usage of birth control. The 1879 law noted that "any human being who uses any kind of drug, medicinal post or instrument for the objectives of avoiding conception shall it is in fined not less than fourty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days." The law further provided that "any human being who assists, abets, counsels, causes, rental or commands another to commit any offense might be prosecuted and punished together if he were the rule offender." Estelle Griswold, the executive director of to plan Parenthood organization of Connecticut, and also Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale medical School, were arrested and found guilty together accessories to offering illegal contraception. They were fined $100 each. Griswold and also Buxton appealed to the supreme Court the Errors of Connecticut, claiming that the law violated the U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut court upheld the conviction, and Griswold and also Buxton appealed come the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the instance in 1965. The can be fried Court, in a 7-2 decision composed by Justice wilhelm O. Douglas, ruled that the regulation violated the "right come marital privacy" and could not be enforced against married people. Justice Douglas completed that the invoice of Right"s specific guarantees have actually "penumbras," created by "emanations native these guarantees that help give lock life and also opinion." In other words, the "spirit" the the an initial Amendment (free speech), third Amendment (prohibition on the required quartering the troops), fourth Amendment (freedom native searches and seizures), fifth Amendment (freedom indigenous self-incrimination), and Ninth amendment (other rights), as applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general "right come privacy" the cannot it is in unduly infringed. Further, this ideal to privacy is "fundamental" when it pertains to the actions of married couples, due to the fact that it "is of such a character that it can not be denied without violating those fundamental principles the liberty and also justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions." because a married couple"s use of contraception constitutes a "fundamental" right, Connecticut need to prove come the Court the its regulation is "compelling" and "absolutely necessary" to conquer that best (i.e., the "strict scrutiny test"). Due to the fact that Connecticut failed to prove this, the legislation was struck under as applied. Other justices, while agreeing the marital privacy is a "fundamental right" and also that the Connecticut regulation should it is in struck down, disagreed with Justice Douglas regarding where in the Constitution such a "fundamental right" exists. In his concurrence, righteousness Arthur Goldberg argued that the 9th Amendment, which claims that the invoice of rights does no exhaust all the rights contained by the people, permits the Court to uncover the "fundamental appropriate to marital privacy" without having to ground the in a certain constitutional amendment. In another concurrence, Justice man Marshall Harlan II maintained that a "fundamental ideal to marital privacy" exists only due to the fact that marital privacy has traditionally been safeguarded by American society. Finally, in yet another concurrence, justice Byron White suggested that a fundamental right come marital privacy constitutes a liberty under the Due procedure Clause, and is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.Yet, because that all your differences, the bulk in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right come privacy," in addition to being "fundamental," to be "substantive." In West coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court had rejected the idea the the constitution protects "substantive rights," i.e., protects particular activities from federal government interference that room not clearly mentioned in the invoice of Rights. In Griswold, however, that ruled the "substantive rights" execute exist in non-economic areas like "the ideal to privacy," also if they perform not in economic tasks like the ideal to contract. End the next 10 years, the Court broadened this fundamental, substantive "right to privacy" beyond the marital bedroom, judgment that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by everyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird <1972>), and also that the state could not ban many abortions (Roe v. Walking <1973>).
*
AUTHOR"S BIO
*
Alex McBride is a 3rd year legislation student at Tulane regulation School in NewOrleans. That is write-ups editor top top the TULANE legislation REVIEW and also the 2005recipient of the beam Forrester compensation in constitution Law. In 2007, Alexwill be clerking with Judge Susan Braden ~ above the United says Court ofFederal claims in Washington.
*
*



See more: Learn To Write The Cursive Lowercase X Coloring Page, Cursive Writing Worksheet

Published in December 2006.THE can be fried COURT is a manufacturing of ugandan-news.com/WNET new York.© 2007 education Broadcasting Corporation. All civil liberties reserved.Terms of use | PBS Privacy Policy