The Rights Of The United States Constitution

Eisenstadt v. Baird was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court. It ruled in favor of unmarried couples using birth control. Griswold v. Connecticut provided the right for secrecy under the marital bedroom only, but not birth control on unmarried couples. The ruling was based it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument was simple. The law which the defendants were penalized was a Massachusetts law of “Crimes Against Chastity”. Because it did not prosecuted marry couples due to buying, possessing, or using birth controls, it was discriminatory this law persecuted unmarried couples for it. Also it was ruled one of the defendants was exercising his freedom of speech, when distributing birth control. Therefore he could not be punished. Judge Brennan wrote in his opinion

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), a case involving the right to privacy, had to go through uncharted territory. A Connecticut statute prohibited the use of contraceptives both by married and unmarried persons. The statute also prohibited anyone from helping couples obtain contraceptives. Griswold provided information as to preventing contraception and was fined as an accessory under the statute. The case was brought to Supreme Court where they ruled in Griswold’s favor.

In Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy, Johnson outlines the struggle to overturn an 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law while arguing for the right of privacy. In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, attorney Thomas Emerson argued that the “anticontraception statutes denied Griswold and Buxton their right to liberty and property without due process of law, as guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Furthermore, in constructing the constitutional right of privacy, Emerson cited the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Then, in the Supreme Court’s 1965 majority opinion, Justice William Douglas stated that “The First Amendment… has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion.” He went on to elaborate that the 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law was unconstitutional because “a law such as Section 53-32 that attempts to punish the mere use of contraceptives ‘sweep[s] unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade[s] the area of protected freedoms.’” Therefore, Griswold was finally able to achieve a fight that had begun fifty years prior.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Griswold, and her claim that the state contraceptive law was unconstitutional.

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the first amendment and fourteenth amendment gave American citizens certain freedoms, such as the right to privacy. In turn, the Court struck down the Connecticut birth control ban, and forbade the government from making laws that interfere with the personal matters of married couples and their physician. However, more importantly, in the Court’s majority opinion, it relied on decided cases that used the Bill of Rights to validate the right of privacy even though this right is never explicitly written in the Constitution. Even so, the Griswold v. Connecticut decision has served as a precedent for other monumental cases like Roe v. Wade (1973), while upholding a

Norma McCorvey, who was unable to care for her ready born child felt that abortion was the only solution for her unborn child. But with Texas law only allowing abortions as a means of saving the life of a mother, she was denied the right to an abortion. That’s when Texas lawyers, who were trying desperately to bring a “lawsuit of change”, felt that McCorvey’s case was the one they needed. Unfortunately for Norma, Roe v. Wade was not passed in time for her to abort her baby. Her lawyers argued the woman’s right to abortion was protected by the 9th amendment, being that the denying abortion was a violation of the right to privacy. Abortion ties into privacy; the right to privacy ties into the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments.

Griswold was a Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, she and another gave some instructions about birth control and some other ways of planned parenthood in the state of Connecticut. Griswold was convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. (along with with some other medical treatment) The conclusion is although that the constitution does not directly protect the right to privacy, the numerous zones in the Bill of Rights, do establish a right to privacy. The Connecticut statute conflicts with this right, therefore making it void. At first the case was on the side on Connecticut, until the case was later overturned by

According to Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut the United States Constitution protects women’s rights to use contraceptives. Our Constitutional heritage and principles contradict the verdict of that case. The general right to privacy that (has been said) is outlined in the Constitution, was used in the Supreme Court case to argue that decisions about a woman’s body is protected. Yet, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the right to marital privacy. There are many flaws surrounding the verdict of Griswold v. Connecticut; not only constitutionally, but theologically and scientifically.

Griswold was a Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, she and another gave some instructions about birth control and some other ways of planned parenthood in the state of Connecticut. Griswold was convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. (along with with some other medical treatment) The conclusion is although that the constitution does not directly protect the right to privacy, the numerous zones in the Bill of Rights, do establish a right to privacy. The Connecticut statute conflicts with this right, therefore making it void. At first the case was on the side on Connecticut, until the case was later overturned by the U.S Supreme court on June, 7 of 1965.

During the years leading up to and after 1973, there were numerous events and situations that occurred. Before 1965, the idea of right to privacy was barely used, but Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) changed that. “The case involved a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives” (Edwards III, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 131). A doctor and a family-planner were arrested for distributing the use of contraceptives for couples in need. They were eventually brought to court by the state and were convicted. The case was taken to the Supreme Court and was later decided that everyone is entitled to their “right to privacy.” This set the precedent for Roe v. Wade because without Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision might be completely different than what it is now. A court case called Rust v. Sullivan was related to abortion. It specified that “family planning services receiving federal funds could not provide women any counseling regard abortion” (Edwards III, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 131). This decision created public scrutiny as the decision would violate the First Amendment. President Clinton eventually lifted the ban on abortion counseling as it

     Have you ever wondered how abortion came to be legal? It was decided in the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was a major landmark in not only the abortion issue, but also in American government.

What is a bill of rights? What is an amendment? How are the different? A bill of rights is a formality such as the Declaration of Independence and it is the outline of what the citizens feel their born rights are as people of a union. An amendment is the changing or altering of a legal or civil document. Specifically amendments in the United States Constitution include the changing or detailing of what the people need. These two phrases differ in what their purposes are. The bill of rights was set as a clean-up for the Declaration of Independence requested by the general population used to form a more structured government. An amendment is used to overcome a specific objection like slavery or details are government processes.

It has been a long time since the question whether America should set English as its official language became controversial. Majority of people in this country consciously accept the fact that English is most directly relevant to their success, however, English-only policy is actually violating the spirit of America and may result in serious problems in some cases.

People of the United States of America have basic human rights. Among them are the rights to education and democracy, freedoms of speech, thought, and expression, and the right to life. However, currently, there is no right to die present in the U.S. The right to die is defined as the right of persons to choose natural death and refuse any medical measures to prolong their lives under the circumstances of terminal illnesses and the unlikeliness of them getting well (“Right-to-die”). “Death with Dignity” laws are present in a few states such as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, and Montana via court decision, but these laws are still not recognized on the federal level. For a terminally ill person, it is often not an option to move to one of these states to execute the right to die since the law has strict residency requirements, including state Driver License, filed state tax returns, lease or property ownership documentation (“Public Health’s Role”). Thus, the persons, being weak physically and mentally are forced medical care to prolong their lives by reducing the quality of them without any hope for recovery. Unmanageable health care costs become a burden on the family members and loved ones of the patients. Terminally ill patients should have a choice to die on their own terms to avoid further unbearable pain, to prevent the demolition of the quality of their lives, and to stop the sufferings of their loved ones.

-In 1968 the Supreme Court decided the Griswold case, stating that the government had no right to interfere in reproductive issues within a marriage.