1. Griswold's arguments were totally against Connecticut. He proved Connecticut that the law which he proposed was totally against the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws,". His arguments mainly focused on that married couples have the right and freedom to do whatever they like to do. There can be no one as hindrance to stop them from doing what they want to.
2.Connecticut strongly argued for the ill-legalization of the contraceptive …show more content…
In the oral argument we could see the justices asking questions which are ironic to the the legalization of the pills. I felt a twist at the end because in the end we could see the result 7-2. The court stated that the ban of these pills and the abortion affects the principles of the Constitution. But we could see there are two justices who were against it. The majority got the vote and ill-legalization got banned.
4.If I was a supreme Court judge I would stand in favor for Griswold because what he argues has a point. Ill-legalization of these drugs and acts can cause lots of family problems and can affect the marital status. And also thinking from an overall perspective, I see that it affects the principles of the Constitution too. It affects the person's right to exercise on free-will. Hence I would stand in favor for Griswold.
5. Well, according to me privacy is something where we have no restriction in doing. Privacy really matters for me because if there is privacy, there is really no one who could stop us from doing something. But if there is something as a hinderance then it would affect our pricavy soo badly. I would say yes because Constitution provides us the right amount of freedom that we have to enjoy. I would say Constitution provides me a security for my
2.Connecticut strongly argued for the ill-legalization of the contraceptive …show more content…
In the oral argument we could see the justices asking questions which are ironic to the the legalization of the pills. I felt a twist at the end because in the end we could see the result 7-2. The court stated that the ban of these pills and the abortion affects the principles of the Constitution. But we could see there are two justices who were against it. The majority got the vote and ill-legalization got banned.
4.If I was a supreme Court judge I would stand in favor for Griswold because what he argues has a point. Ill-legalization of these drugs and acts can cause lots of family problems and can affect the marital status. And also thinking from an overall perspective, I see that it affects the principles of the Constitution too. It affects the person's right to exercise on free-will. Hence I would stand in favor for Griswold.
5. Well, according to me privacy is something where we have no restriction in doing. Privacy really matters for me because if there is privacy, there is really no one who could stop us from doing something. But if there is something as a hinderance then it would affect our pricavy soo badly. I would say yes because Constitution provides us the right amount of freedom that we have to enjoy. I would say Constitution provides me a security for my