Griswold V. Connecticut: Griswold, with the Planned Parenthood League, gave information to married couples in regards to birth control in attempt to prevent potential pregnancies. She and another physician involved claimed that the 14th amendment was violated in regards to the accessory statue. The law says that any person that uses any drug preventing conception is subject to fines, greater than forty dollars, or even imprisoned for 60 days. Any person who also assists in this can be prosecuted. This Connecticut law overall prohibited the counseling as well as other medical treatment to any couple that was looking to prevent contraception or the risk of contraception occurring.
Legal question in this case is whether the constitution protects …show more content…
The ban of contraceptives does violate marital privacy. The bill of rights can not be infringed and the right to privacy is fundamental in such states as marriage. The state has to prove to the court that its law is compelling and absolutely necessary to overcome the strict scrutiny test. Griswold wins this case because it was decided that the constitution doesn’t state anything about a right to privacy, however, the bill of rights does create an area that promotes a right to privacy. The combination of a few amendments creates the privacy in a marriage to be protected. As a result, the Connecticut law can not punish Griswold because it is a violation to their rights as well as citizen’s rights. The issue here is that married people do overall have a right to privacy, therefore Connecticut cannot infringe on these rights in …show more content…
The dissenters view the law schools interest in diversity and state that it is not compelling, or even that the use of race by the university was narrowly tailored to further their own interest and not to further benefit the attendees of the school. In Landmark Bakke, a racial program reserved 16 out of 100 seats for members of minority groups, and this stated that the state had a substantial interest that my be served by a properly devised admissions program involving some sort of diversity. This party of the lower courts judgment was reversed. The means are not narrowly tailored to the interest. The system is aiming for a racial balancing and is not demonstrating how individual consideration is being done. Thomas even says that blacks can “achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of the university administrators.” There is obvious racial discrimination here that should not exist. N
In this case, I think that the decision was influenced by race, but not all decisions by this university are based on race. With that being said, I think that in a lot of situations seeing race is an important aspect. While some institutions will take advantage and only chose certain applicants as a result of their race, I think that those institutions that wish to promote diversity should have access to do so. If there are two applicants with basically the exact same number profile, the
Legal question in this case is whether the constitution protects …show more content…
The ban of contraceptives does violate marital privacy. The bill of rights can not be infringed and the right to privacy is fundamental in such states as marriage. The state has to prove to the court that its law is compelling and absolutely necessary to overcome the strict scrutiny test. Griswold wins this case because it was decided that the constitution doesn’t state anything about a right to privacy, however, the bill of rights does create an area that promotes a right to privacy. The combination of a few amendments creates the privacy in a marriage to be protected. As a result, the Connecticut law can not punish Griswold because it is a violation to their rights as well as citizen’s rights. The issue here is that married people do overall have a right to privacy, therefore Connecticut cannot infringe on these rights in …show more content…
The dissenters view the law schools interest in diversity and state that it is not compelling, or even that the use of race by the university was narrowly tailored to further their own interest and not to further benefit the attendees of the school. In Landmark Bakke, a racial program reserved 16 out of 100 seats for members of minority groups, and this stated that the state had a substantial interest that my be served by a properly devised admissions program involving some sort of diversity. This party of the lower courts judgment was reversed. The means are not narrowly tailored to the interest. The system is aiming for a racial balancing and is not demonstrating how individual consideration is being done. Thomas even says that blacks can “achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of the university administrators.” There is obvious racial discrimination here that should not exist. N
In this case, I think that the decision was influenced by race, but not all decisions by this university are based on race. With that being said, I think that in a lot of situations seeing race is an important aspect. While some institutions will take advantage and only chose certain applicants as a result of their race, I think that those institutions that wish to promote diversity should have access to do so. If there are two applicants with basically the exact same number profile, the