The United States (US) Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision of Griswold v. Connecticut, established there is a right of privacy protected by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Nevertheless, there is no such word of “privacy” in the entire US Constitution. The precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut, has been used to decide various landmark cases. Decisions such as Roe v. Wade regarding abortion, and Lawrence v. Texas regarding sodomy, have been influenced by the precedent established in Griswold v. Connecticut. In order to properly understand Griswold v. Connecticut, judicial review has to be understood. Marbury v. Madison was a landmark case, in which the US Supreme Court recognizes its power to utilize judicial review. It means,
…show more content…
Let 's take into consideration Citizens United v. FEC. Under the ruling of Citizens United v. FEC, corporations and individuals are able to donate, without following the limits of the Federal Electoral Commission, to an organization helping a political candidate be elected. The only limitation is, these organizations have no coordination with a candidate or campaign staff. For the sake of the argumen, these organizations are called Political Action Committee (PAC). The Court argued money to political campaigns is considered speech. Therefore, there can not be limited in freedom of speech. The ruling allowed PACs to grow enormously in size and power. They are fed of cash from wealthy donors and corporations. Liberals in the United States argue, with the ability of donating cash with no limit, politicians now have the interest of these corporations and wealthy citizens, before the interest of the average citizens. As elected officials, hold the highest authority in the US government, and their interest now aligned with the interests of large corporations, could undermine US institutions. A judge which takes these arguments into account follows the line of thought of sociological
Let 's take into consideration Citizens United v. FEC. Under the ruling of Citizens United v. FEC, corporations and individuals are able to donate, without following the limits of the Federal Electoral Commission, to an organization helping a political candidate be elected. The only limitation is, these organizations have no coordination with a candidate or campaign staff. For the sake of the argumen, these organizations are called Political Action Committee (PAC). The Court argued money to political campaigns is considered speech. Therefore, there can not be limited in freedom of speech. The ruling allowed PACs to grow enormously in size and power. They are fed of cash from wealthy donors and corporations. Liberals in the United States argue, with the ability of donating cash with no limit, politicians now have the interest of these corporations and wealthy citizens, before the interest of the average citizens. As elected officials, hold the highest authority in the US government, and their interest now aligned with the interests of large corporations, could undermine US institutions. A judge which takes these arguments into account follows the line of thought of sociological