The other is to attempt to evolve a new constitutional framework within which to meet this and similar problems which are likely to arise. Perhaps the theory is that the flat ban on use prevents married people from possessing contraceptives and, without the ready availability of such devices for use in the marital relationship, there will be no or less temptation to use them in extramarital ones. The Impact of Griswold v. Connecticut Legally Speaking . . A long line of cases makes very clear that this has not been the view of this Court.The traditional due process test was well articulated and applied in. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment,The Court stated many years ago that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.those peripheral rights, the specific rights would be less secure. ",The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. . ... As I read the opinions of the Connecticut courts and the argument of Connecticut in this Court, the State claims but one justification for its anti-use statute. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Griswold v. Connecticut. , but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which, always and in every age, it has fostered and protected. 379 U.S. 926.We think that appellants have standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship.Coming to the merits, we are met with a wide range of questions that implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The rationality of this justification is dubious, particularly in light of the admitted widespread availability to all persons in the State of Connecticut. . The former provides:"Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned. 787, Professor Redlich, in advocating reliance on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to invalidate the Connecticut law before us, frankly states:"But for one who feels that the marriage relationship should be beyond the reach of a state law forbidding the use of contraceptives, the birth control case poses a troublesome and challenging problem of constitutional interpretation. Retained by the People"?, 37 N.Y.U.L.Rev. . .
Appellants have standing to assert the constitutional rights of the married people.2. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. which is a jab at Justice William Douglas’s oft-ridiculed Griswold v. Connecticut opinion. In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception. But that extra proviso did not last long. . ","In the one instance, courts, proceeding within clearly marked constitutional boundaries, seek to execute policies written into the Constitution; in the other, they roam at will in the limitless,area of their own beliefs as to reasonableness, and actually select policies, a responsibility which the Constitution entrusts to the legislative representatives of the people. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy." In Griswold v. State of Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court held that married couples had the right to use birth control. In fact, a hesitancy to allow too broad a discretion was a substantial reason leading me to conclude, in,"this Court to make the extremely subjective and excessively discretionary determination as to whether a practice, forbidden the Federal Government by a fundamental constitutional guarantee, is, as viewed in the factual circumstances surrounding each individual case, sufficiently repugnant to the notion of due process as to be forbidden the States.".MR. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term "right of privacy" as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." . While the Ninth Amendment -- and indeed the entire Bill of Rights -- originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties.