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



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

*
*
*
*
*

*
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court figured out a constitutionally defended right come privacy, i beg your pardon the court reasoned prohibited states from denying birth regulate to married couples. Above, a man protests outside a plan Parenthood clinic in brand-new Haven, Connecticut. Reproduction courtesy the Corbis Images
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
*
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the can be fried Court ruled that a state"s half on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case involved a Connecticut legislation that criminalized the encouragement or usage of birth control. The 1879 law noted that "any person who uses any kind of drug, medicinal article or instrument because that the objectives of staying clear of conception shall it is in fined not less than fourty dollars or imprisoned not much less than sixty days." The regulation further noted that "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, rental or commands one more to commit any type of offense might be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender." Estelle Griswold, the executive, management director of planned Parenthood organization of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and also professor at Yale clinical School, were arrested and also found guilty as accessories to offering illegal contraception. They to be fined $100 each. Griswold and Buxton appealed to the can be fried Court of Errors the Connecticut, claiming that the regulation violated the U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut court upheld the conviction, and Griswold and also Buxton appealed to the U.S. Can be fried Court, i m sorry reviewed the case in 1965. The supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision created by Justice wilhelm O. Douglas, ruled the the regulation violated the "right come marital privacy" and also could not be enforced against married people. Righteousness Douglas contended that the bill of Right"s details guarantees have actually "penumbras," developed by "emanations from these assures that aid give castle life and opinion." In other words, the "spirit" of the first Amendment (free speech), third Amendment (prohibition ~ above the forced quartering of troops), 4th Amendment (freedom native searches and also seizures), fifth Amendment (freedom native self-incrimination), and also Ninth modification (other rights), together applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, create a basic "right come privacy" the cannot it is in unduly infringed. Further, this best to privacy is "fundamental" once it concerns the action of married couples, because it "is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles the liberty and justice i m sorry lie at the base of ours civil and also political institutions." due to the fact that a married couple"s use of contraception constitutes a "fundamental" right, Connecticut should prove come the Court that its legislation is "compelling" and also "absolutely necessary" to conquer that best (i.e., the "strict scrutiny test"). Since Connecticut failed come prove this, the regulation was struck under as applied. Various other justices, if agreeing the marital privacy is a "fundamental right" and that the Connecticut legislation should be struck down, disagreed with Justice Douglas regarding where in the Constitution together a "fundamental right" exists. In his concurrence, justice Arthur Goldberg suggested that the ninth Amendment, which claims that the invoice of rights does not exhaust every the rights included by the people, permits the Court to discover the "fundamental right to marital privacy" without having to ground it in a specific constitutional amendment. In another concurrence, Justice man Marshall Harlan II maintained that a "fundamental ideal to marital privacy" exists only because marital privacy has actually traditionally been protected by American society. Finally, in yet another concurrence, righteousness Byron White argued that a an essential right come marital privacy constitutes a liberty under the Due process Clause, and is defended by the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.Yet, for all your differences, the bulk in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right to privacy," in enhancement to gift "fundamental," was "substantive." In West coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court had actually rejected the idea the the constitution protects "substantive rights," i.e., protects details activities from federal government interference that room not clearly mentioned in the bill of Rights. In Griswold, however, that ruled that "substantive rights" carry out exist in non-economic areas like "the appropriate to privacy," even if they carry out not in economic tasks like the right to contract. End the following 10 years, the Court broadened this fundamental, substantive "right to privacy" past the marital bedroom, judgment that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird <1972>), and also that the state might not ban many abortions (Roe v. Walking <1973>).
*
AUTHOR"S BIO
*
Alex McBride is a third year regulation student in ~ Tulane legislation School in NewOrleans. He is posts editor top top the TULANE legislation REVIEW and the 2005recipient that the ray Forrester compensation in constitutional Law. In 2007, Alexwill be clerking through Judge Susan Braden on the United states Court ofFederal insurance claims in Washington.
*
*



See more: +1000 Remedios Caseros Para La Colitis Nerviosa, 6 Remedios Caseros Para La Colitis Nerviosa

Published in December 2006.THE supreme COURT is a production of wgc2010.org/WNET new York.© 2007 education Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved.Terms of usage | PBS Privacy Policy