Griswold vs. Ct Right to Privacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter slinky1882
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

slinky1882

Guest
Has anyone on these Forums read the Court Decision and various opinions in the case of Griwold vs. Ct (this case played a large role in the precendent for Roe v. Wade/ Doe v. Bolton)???

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479

If you read all the concurring opinions delivered, they all point to a “right to privacy”, but there wasn’t agreement of where this right came from??? (i.e. Due Process, Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment in general or even the Justice Douglas’s “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system.”) How in the 7 or so intervening years did the Court arrive at a unitive view for Roe V. Wade where the “right to privacy was embedded”??? Any thoughts??? Thanks and God Bless.
 
40.png
slinky1882:
Has anyone on these Forums read the Court Decision and various opinions in the case of Griwold vs. Ct (this case played a large role in the precendent for Roe v. Wade/ Doe v. Bolton)???

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479

If you read all the concurring opinions delivered, they all point to a “right to privacy”, but there wasn’t agreement of where this right came from??? (i.e. Due Process, Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment in general or even the Justice Douglas’s “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system.”) How in the 7 or so intervening years did the Court arrive at a unitive view for Roe V. Wade where the “right to privacy was embedded”??? Any thoughts??? Thanks and God Bless.
Click to expand...
I have wondered that myself. I read the entire Roe case and it leaps from one thing to the next. From Greeks to old wives tales, to rudimentary biology. Then they neatly package it as “privacy” which does not appear anywhere. Now that it’s been confirmed over and over, it has been created out of breaded air.

Lisa N
 
They made it up… and did not feel compelled to even attempt to justify it.
 
A “right to privacy” appears nowhere explicitly in the Constitution. The Griswold court put it there, or said it was in there implicitly, in order to justify intervening in state laws governing the sale of contaceptives.

The Roe court then used it to justify abortion.
 
In Griswald, the Court said that even though the Constitution fails to mention it explicitly, the document contained an implicit “right to privacy”. Justice William Douglas said that “the right to privacy formed by emanations of other rights that were included, such as being free from unreasonable search and seizure.” Actually, they just made it up. No where does the constitution say the right to privacy. And, even if it did, how does the right to privacy guarentee abortion?!!! I believe it DOES in fact say that we have the RIGHT TO LIFE.

A judiciary that is out of control?
 
40.png
Timidity:
Are any of you familiar with the Ninth Amendment?
Click to expand...
It was cited in Griswold. It almost seems to say that just because a right isn’t clearly designated, it doesn’t mean that ‘the people’ can’t create one. However, who are ‘the people’ in this case? IOW it was decided by one judge for contraception I think, sort of hauling in an all but the kitchen sink group of rules including illegal search and seizure. This right to privacy thing was basically made up and I am sure they had no idea the long term ramifications.

Lisa N
 
Thomas Jefferson wrote about the case of Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, which declared that the Supreme Court had the ultimate power to rule on the constitutionality of every legal issue, “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all consitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the depotism of an oligarchy.” (See www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html.)

In 1819, Jefferson later stated, “The Consititution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” (Ibid.)

Three years before his death, in 1823, Jefferson saw that he was not merely predicting the rise of an imperious court but observing it, “At the establishment of our Constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous, …” (Ibid.)

And so,

on January 20, 2005, Judge Gary Lancaster of the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania defended his position dismissing a federal case against hardcore pornographers: “After [the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision (that sodomy is constitutional right)], however, upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest that can justify infringing one’s liberty interest to engage in consensual sexual conduct in private.”

So there it is – the third branch of the federal government declares that upholding the public sense of morality is not a legitimate state interest.

This country was born on the prayers and leadership of men like Thomas Jefferson. The germ of dissolution will only be prevented from bearing its fruit by men and woman like Jefferson. I believe America will soon be at an important crossroad. Make no mistake about it, powerful forces are being amassed to fight any judicial nominee or chief justice nominee that would respect the public sense of morality. It will take more than just standing up to be counted. We must pray. We must contact the leaders of the senate and media. We must talk about truth to other thoughtful persons and convince them to also take action.
 
Grizwold is a 9th ammendment case plain and simple. It established marital privacy as a right. I dont agree with the finding, I think that if there is a compelling state OR SOCIETAL interest, you need to have a bit of civic virtue.

the funny thing is if you ever read discussions of privacy issues, they will always be listed as “liberty” because privacy is not a fundamental right but freedom is.
 
40.png
Brain:
Grizwold is a 9th ammendment case plain and simple. It established marital privacy as a right. I dont agree with the finding, I think that if there is a compelling state OR SOCIETAL interest, you need to have a bit of civic virtue.

the funny thing is if you ever read discussions of privacy issues, they will always be listed as “liberty” because privacy is not a fundamental right but freedom is.
Click to expand...
Hey Brain,
If the case was the 9th Amendment pure and simple, why couldn’t the justices agree on the 9th as support??? In Justice Douglas’s opinion, “The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each, against the claim that the accessory statute as so applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.” And secondly, why did Griswold and Buxton appeal on the 14th Amendment not the 9th??? Curious. Thanks and God Bless.
 
The court actually has changed their minds about where the right to privacy came from. First, in Griswald they found it in the penumbras of the bill of rights, in other words, that it was somehow implied in the first ten amendments.

But then in Roe and all the rest of the “privacy” cases, the court changed its mind and decided there was a right to privacy in the 14th amendment due process clause.(no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law)

Go figure. I tell my students that theology makes perfect sense if you study it long enough because ultimately it comes from God, whereas civil law, you can study it as long as you want and it still really doesn’t make sense because it comes from confused lawyers.
 
It appears Harriet Miers and Senator Spector have had a slight disagreement as to their first meeting. According to the media, Ms. Miers said at first she agreed with the Griswold case when Senator Spector brought it up in conversation pertaining to a so called right to privacy. Then the White House said the Senator misunderstood what Ms. Miers was trying to say, specifically, she didnt agree with it. Senator Spector, a prochoice Republican who was in a very tough reelection in 04’ against a much more conservative and prolife Republican benefited greatly from the Presidents campaigning for him now appears to be in a very delicate situation as the nomination process continues.

Three questions.

1.Do you think the President is now regretting the campaigning for Spector, bearing in mind that the other Republican may have not beat the Democrat in the general election? 2. And how do you think Senator Spector will handle this nomination?3. Lastly, as a practicing Catholic who does not use artificial contraception, I don’t believe the state should mandate laws either making legal or illegal to have access for contraception. Do you agree or disagree and why?
Rob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top