The Rights Of The United States

Griswold v. Connecticut was argued on March 28-29, 1965 and the decision of the Supreme Court was decided on June 7, 1965. It was questioned whether or not the Constitution protected the rights of marital privacy (limits government intrusion into private family matters) against restrictions for a couple to receive counseling on using contraceptives. Mrs. Griswold had given counseling to a married couple that had wanted to use birth control and it was against Connecticut law to do so. The Supreme Court’s ruling was that married couples have the right to privacy and the law was declared unconstitutional as it violated the right of privacy. Married couples have the right to private privacy.

On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the

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.

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.

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.

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

Often times in today’s world we take certain luxuries for granted. The right to vote, the right of free speech, etc. But one of those luxuries that people often don’t consider is the right for women to use birth control. The Supreme Court case that argued for the use of contraceptives was Griswold vs Connecticut. The court case was argued March 29th-30th 1965, but was not decided until June 7th 1965. The case was on the debate of whether or not the use of contraceptives should be legalized. Griswold, the Executive and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was on the side arguing for the legalization of the use of contraceptives in a marriage. While the opposing side, the state of Connecticut statute, had forbidden the use of contraceptives since 1879.

Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is, therefore, null and void.

The two appellants of this case were giving guidance and providing married couples with information on the use of contraception. Eventually the two appellants were charged of violating a law that prohibit the use of any type of contraception by anyone. However, they appealed the court’s decision arguing that the law violated the married couples right to privacy, which is protected under the a few amendments of the US constitution (McBride, 2007).

On June 7, 1965, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was the constitutional right of married females to be prescribed birth control. This ruling found fault in the Connecticut state ban on the use of contraceptives. The 1879 Connecticut law was ruled as unconstitutional because it infringed on citizen’s rights to privacy. This case is studied to this day because it concerns the rights and liberties of individuals.

When The United States came into being, the heads of the country made a great deal of emphasis in making sure the country fulfilled one requirement: the United States needed to be the living image of freedom. This image of freedom needed to exist not only as a geographical and political entity, meaning free from the English, but as a society as well, and that is why it opted for a democracy as a system to rule, to let the citizens be able to live freely. Despite the obvious issues presented in the country on that moment that we might call hypocrite, like slavery; the founding fathers knew what they wanted the country to achieve, and laid a great base for getting there, The Bill of Rights, the document that preceded the Constitution in

Blackmun argued that the right to privacy, as defined in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision in 1965, included “the abortion decision.” In the ninth amendment, Blackmun argued, was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” However, despite this argument of a woman’s right to end her pregnancy being cover under the “right to privacy” as established in Griswold,

The United States Constitution was designed to enfranchise the white men who, in 1787, were the only citizens included in John Locke’s conception of the social contract (outlined in his Second Treatise of Government). At this time in history, women were not invited to be free and equal, in relation to their husbands and fathers or as citizens in the founding fathers’ new republic. Therefore, the Constitution never addresses abortion, contraception, or marriage. Arguments made in laws and court cases on these topics, specifically reproductive rights, have therefore traditionally rested on a right to privacy the court has interpreted as being found in the first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, rather than a right to freedom from sex-based discrimination found in the nineteenth amendment. The landmark supreme court cases Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade were both won on these grounds, both setting a precedent for the expansion of the right to privacy. This protection has also been affected by the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and the Hyde Amendment.

The Bill of Rights is a historical documents that has the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is for greater constitutional protection for our own individual liberties. It has a list of specific prohibitions on government power. There were only 12 amendments originally for the state legislatures and only picked 10 for all the states and those are known as the Bill of Rights, but there are 27 amendments in total. Amendments 3 through 12 were adopted by the United States to become the United States (US BILL OF RIGHTS) and were written down on December 15, 1791. James Madison was the one who wrote the Bill of Rights and there were 56 people to sign for approval.

While the power of judicial review has been used sparingly and with judicial restraint since "the rise of pragmatic jurisprudence and legal realism in the early twentieth century," (Siegel, Ely, McCloskey) there have been certain developments within American society, which managed to provoke controversy. Indeed, it could well be said that each and every case that goes to the Supreme Court "involves a controversy of paramount national importance." (Irish and Prothro, 524). One such case, which challenged the Court's view of the basic right to privacy, namely the Griswold V. Connecticut case, was prosecuted in 1965. Sue Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut along with the Medical Director of the League were engaging in the practice of giving information and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Following their subsequent conviction (for violating a 1879 Connecticut law which criminalised the provision of