*
*
Search:
*
Check local listings
*
*
*
*
Explore by topicThe Court and DemocracyLaw, Power & PersonalityThe First Hundred YearsCapitalism and also Conflict Expanding Civil RightsThe Future of the Court
*
*
*



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

*
*
*
*
*

*
In Griswold v. Connectireduced, the Court established a constitutionally safeguarded best to privacy, which the court reasoned prohibited claims from denying birth regulate to married couples. Above, a guy protests exterior a Planned Parenthood clinic in New Haven, Connectireduced. Reproduction courtesy of Corbis Images
Griswold v. Connectireduced (1965)
*
In Griswold v. Connectireduced (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state"s ban on the use of contraceptives violated the ideal to marital privacy. The situation came to a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth manage. The 1879 law offered that "any perchild who provides any type of drug, medicinal write-up or instrument for the functions of staying clear of conception shall be fined not much less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days." The law better provided that "any perkid that assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands one more to commit any type of offense may be prosecuted and also punished as if he were the principle offender." Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Organization of Connecticut, and also Dr. C. Lee Buxton, medical professional and professor at Yale Medical School, were arrested and uncovered guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. They were fined $100 each. Griswold and Buxton appeacaused the Supreme Court of Errors of Connectireduced, claiming that the regulation violated the UNITED STATE Constitution. The Connecticut court upheld the conviction, and Griswold and also Buxton appearesulted in the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the situation in 1965. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, ruled that the regulation violated the "right to marital privacy" and also might not be applied versus married civilization. Justice Douglas competed that the Bill of Right"s particular assures have "penumbras," produced by "emacountries from these promises that help provide them life and opinion." In other words, the "spirit" of the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment (prohibition on the required quartering of troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches and also seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and also Ninth Amendment (other rights), as applied against the says by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general "best to privacy" that cannot be unduly infringed. Further, this appropriate to privacy is "fundamental" as soon as it involves the actions of married couples, bereason it "is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those standard ethics of liberty and also justice which lie at the base of our civil and political organizations." Due to the fact that a married couple"s use of contraception constitutes a "fundamental" appropriate, Connectireduced need to prove to the Court that its law is "compelling" and "absolutely necessary" to get over that right (i.e., the "strict scrutiny test"). Since Connectireduced faibrought about prove this, the regulation was struck dvery own as used. Other justices, while agreeing that marital privacy is a "basic right" and also that the Connectireduced legislation should be struck down, disagreed through Justice Douglas regarding wbelow in the Constitution such a "basic right" exists. In his concurrence, Justice Arthur Goldberg said that the Ninth Amendment, which says that the Bill of Rights does not exhaust all the civil liberties included by the human being, permits the Court to discover the "basic appropriate to marital privacy" without having actually to ground it in a specific constitutional amendment. In another concurrence, Justice John Marshall Harlan II maintained that a "fundamental right to marital privacy" exists only bereason marital privacy has traditionally been safeguarded by Amerihave the right to society. Finally, in yet another concurrence, Justice Byron White said that a fundamental best to marital privacy constitutes a liberty under the Due Process Clausage, and also is defended by the Fourteenth Amendment versus the claims.Yet, for all their differences, the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right to privacy," in addition to being "standard," was "substantive." In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court had rejected the principle that the Constitution protects "substantive legal rights," i.e., protects certain activities from federal government interference that are not explicitly pointed out in the Bill of Rights. In Griswold, yet, it ruled that "substantive rights" do exist in non-financial locations prefer "the right to privacy," also if they execute not in financial activities favor the ideal to contract. Over the following 10 years, the Court increased this standard, substantive "appropriate to privacy" beyond the marital bedroom, ruling that the state can not ban the usage of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird <1972>), and that the state might not ban a lot of abortions (Roe v. Wade <1973>).
*
AUTHOR"S BIO
*
Alex McBride is a 3rd year law student at Tulane Law School in NewOrleans. He is articles editor on the TULANE LAW REVIEW and the 2005recipient of the Ray Forrester Award in Constitutional Law. In 2007, Alexwill certainly be clerking through Judge Susan Braden on the United States Court ofFederal Claims in Washington.
*
*



See more: Guests Ss Nice Place Nigga Meme, Nice Place Nigga

Published in December 2006.THE SUPREME COURT is a manufacturing of thedailysplash.tv/WNET New York.© 2007 Educational Broadspreading Corporation. All legal rights booked.Terms of Use | PBS Privacy Policy