Griswold V. Connecticut Case Summary

Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton are citizens of the United States, which means as United States’ citizens, the Constitution protects their rights. Our flagship document, the Constitution, was created purposefully to protect the rights of citizens. Griswold and Buxton were also residents of Connecticut, as that is where they lived, advocated, practiced, and eventually, chose to break their state law. Griswold and Buxton’s case “Griswold v. Connecticut,” arrived on the bench of the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Griswold’s ‘success’ undermines the statements made in the Constitution to which they should have been subjected to follow. Many scholars revert to the basis of privacy or the due process clause when discussing this case. Griswold and Buxton had success in their case because the majority …show more content…
The right to privacy itself is never defined in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. Many scholars, including the majority justices, believe there are amendments that are relevant to this case, but the ‘right of privacy’ has exceptions that damage the sturdiness of it as a concept. For example, a citizen can cause harm to another person in the privacy of his own dwelling, and not a public arena. If one hears the victim demanding help, then the right of the privacy that the people formally had in the dwelling disappears since the safety of the victim, and therefore the liberty of said person, was in question. One can deduce that a right to privacy does not sustain if it infringes on other people’s liberty, as we are entitled to protection. The ruling in favor of Griswold was unconstitutional since it was based on the idea of privacy, which is not founded on ideas in the constitution, but rather on social conventions. The majority justices were devoid of a strong foundation that they would need in order to have this