Griswold v. Connecticut | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Does the Constitution protect a right to privacy within marriage? Find out the answer to this question in the latest episode of BRI's Homework Help Series.
Griswold v. Connecticut debates the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. Incorporation allows the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, including the 14th Amendment, to apply to the states and not only the federal government.
0:00 Have you ever wondered if you have more protections than are listed in the Bill of Rights? Well, guess what you do. The Founders created the Ninth Amendment to make sure that your rights are not limited to just those in the Constitution. So if they’re not specifically mentioned, how can you find out what they are? One way is to look back at the Supreme Court rulings that have interpreted laws
0:21 to determine whether or not they violate protections laid out in the Constitution. This is the story of Griswold versus Connecticut The story begins in 1879 in Connecticut, when the state legislature passed a law banning the distribution or use of artificial birth control.
0:44 Fast forward to the 1960s and U.S. society was changing a lot. But the ban on birth control remained. Estelle Griswold, a gynecologist and head of the Connecticut Planned Parenthood, wanted to challenge the law and make birth control available. In 1961 Griswold and her colleague Dr. C. Lee Buxton opened a birth control clinic in New Haven.
1:05 But it didn’t last long. They were arrested, tried and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception, and they were each fined $100. They appealed, but when the conviction was upheld, they took their case to the Supreme Court. Attorneys for Griswold argued that the law banning birth control was unconstitutional because the Constitution includes
1:27 an inherent right to privacy. To back up their argument they cited several constitutional amendments, including the 14th substantive due process clause, which they argued protected them from state laws, depriving an individual of fundamental rights, even if those rights are not directly listed in the Constitution. The state of Connecticut argued that it had legitimate police powers
1:49 to regulate the health, safety and morality of citizens through laws made by representatives. On June 7th, 1965, the court ruled 7 to 2 that the Connecticut law was unconstitutional because it violated the right to privacy, even though this right was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion of the court,
2:12 arguing that several amendments “have penumbras formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” He meant other amendments created zones of privacy, which the government could not intrude upon. In the dissent, Justice Stewart and Justice Black denied that the Constitution implied a right to privacy
2:33 and argued that this was not a constitutional question for the courts, but something that should be decided by the people through their state legislatures. Griswold versus Connecticut became one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in history, laying the foundation for the future expansion of the right to privacy in Roe v Wade and other cases.
2:54 What is the best way to define rights not specifically listed in the Constitution?
