Griswold V Connecticut

.. erpreted this ruling, and established marriage, as already stated by Justice Douglas, an association. In addition, the court argues that: (in NAACP v. Alabama) Awe protected the *freedom to associate and privacy in one=s association=, noting that freedom of association was a peripheral First Amendment [email protected] Therefore, as marriage being an association, it must have a certain facet of privacy. In dissent of these judgements, were justices Black and Steward.

They dissent on the belief that there is no specified Aright of [email protected] in the constitution, but a protection of privacy. In addition, they argue that the other justices are taking the due process clause out of context. AI do not believe that we are granted power by the Due Process Clause or any other constitutional provision or provisions to measure constitutionality by our belief that legislation is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or accomplishes no justifiable purpose, or is offensive to our own notions of *civilized standards of [email protected] In spite of these argument, however, it is stated the belief that Athe law is every bit as offensive to me as it is to my [email protected] The relationship between the Court precedents and Griswold are, therefore, sovereignty over the citizens personal decisions. Wether it be the right to educate a child how one wishes (Pierce v. Society of Sisters), the right to study a foreign language (Meyer v.

Nebraska), salute a flag (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett), or the right of privacy in an association (NAACP v. Alabama) , the Supreme Court had previously decided that these personal decisions were embodied in the Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. It should be noted at this point that Eisenstadt v. Baird, decided in 1972, extended the Griswold ruling by striking down state laws that prohibited unmarried persons the access to contraceptive devises. This was somewhat controversial for many believed that if the defendants in Griswold were not married couples, the issue of marital privacy could not have been looked at, and the ruling would presumably be challenged.

The social and political ramifications of both Griswold and, seven years later, of Eisenstadt, are obvious in the social and political climate of today=s United States. Today there is still an endless debate over the implications that both cases concluded. The cases that followed, including one of the U.S. Supreme Courts most controversial rulings Roe v. Wade, created a timeless debate over the citizens private choice of contraception. AThe overlap between the right to choice and the right to privacy is a recurrent theme, particularly in abortion cases and, on closer inspection, in every other area of reproductive rights and in allied privacy rights as [email protected] Since this ruling, the Supreme Court has used judicial review (or the Due Process Clause) to strike down many state laws they found unconstitutional.

The Griswold case, in fact, has set a precedence for numerous controversial cases involving privacy issues. Roe v. Wade (1973) is probably the most controversial of these cases. The decision, which was handed down on January 23, 1973, deemed the Texas and Georgia abortion laws unconstitutional. The Texas case, Roe v.

Wade, concerned a statute which restricted legal abortions to those deemed necessary to save the woman=s life. The Georgia case, Doe v. Bolton, dealt with a state law permitting abortions only when required by the woman=s health, or to prevent birth of a deformed child, or when pregnancy resulted from rape. The Court=s ruling to make these laws invalid, implies that similarly restrictive laws in most other states were also unconstitutional. In spite of the decision in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Roe and Doe, the Supreme Court has seemed to become more conservative in upholding the right of privacy recent times.

In Bower v. Hardwick (1986), the Court maintained a Georgia law that constituted sodomy illegal: Ain constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual [email protected] In the case, Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court, and stated that the previous precedents did not apply because there was ANo connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activities on the other has been [email protected] Evidently the arguments, or fears, of Justice Douglas in Griswold, that; AWould we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage [email protected] Though the relationship may be of a same sex partner, and the marriage of these couples is not highly accepted, this law not only outlawed sodomy for same sex partners, but for married couples as well. In twenty-one years, the Court, in essence contrasted their privacy ruling in Griswold. In the Supreme Court=s most recent decision, Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v.

Casey (1992), the Court again took a right-winged position. By a five-four majority, the Court limited the rights of citizens it dictated in both Griswold and Roe: A(the Court) upheld Roe but narrowed its scope, refusing to invalidate a Pennsylvania law that significantly restricts freedom of [email protected] The decisions in both Bower v. Hardwick and Planned Parenthood show a reform in the Court=s application of judicial review. It also demonstrates the complex issue which is abortion, and the right to privacy, in the United States. Since the decision in Griswold, the citizens in the U.S.

have bickered over the end result. Both pro-life and pro-choice activist have argued their cases before the media, courts, and to the public. It seems the Court has shifted towards regulated abortions to satisfy the public=s demands. Maybe the choice should be offered to the public, to end the debate through majority rule. However, it is in the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases that a ruling was made, that citizens have a right to choose their own fate to protect their individual privacies.

ACertainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters..or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. [email protected] – Abele v. Markle Political Issues.