Griswold v. Connecticut: Case Analysis

In law, there are two approaches to legal interpretation: textualism and non-textualism. Textualists believe that the constitution should be construed literally by focusing on the plain text of the legal document. In contrast, non-textualists, also called originalists, approach the meaning of the law as understood by the populace at the time of its founding. In the ruling case of Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Arthur Goldberg’s argument explains the importance of using textualism to understand the constitution. While originalism is a strong argument against textualism, textualism is essential because it emphasizes how people would understand the terms in the constitution at the time they were formalized. It provides better certainty of the law and offers respect and significance for the rule of law. This discussion will use textualism and non-textualism to understand the controversies in the ruling of the Griswold v. Connecticut case.

Arguments in the Griswold v. Connecticut Case

The Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut opened the opportunity to expand the right to privacy in other aspects previously not considered, such as contraception and abortion. This case was against the Connecticut law that banned contraceptives for married couples which unconstitutionally interferes with marital privacy. The executive director of Planned Parenthood and league and the medical physician were taken to court on the allegations that they unlawfully advised a couple to use contraceptive measures to avoid conception, which was against the law in Connecticut (“Griswold v. Connecticut”, 2022). The petitioners countered these allegations by asserting that the law unconstitutionally invaded the privacy of the married couple.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled against the Connecticut law by abiding by the constitution that protected the right to privacy. Textualism and non-textualism are applied in this case because the justice arguments were on the opposing side of the context of the law. Justice Goldberg and Justice Black have different meanings of the Ninth Amendment, especially regarding this case that raised disagreements. While Justice Goldberg said the Amendment was intended to grant the people a right to be left alone, Justice Black disagreed, saying that the Amendment was designed to allow the people to choose which government powers they would delegate to the federal government.

The main reason for the Ninth Amendment is to clarify that the federal government does not possess the rights written in the constitution; the people own them. The Ninth Amendment is the only Amendment that does not mention the right to life, liberty, or property. The primary purpose of the Amendment is to protect rights that are not mentioned in the constitution. The controversy surrounding this Amendment is the uncertainty of whether it has the mandate to grant the unmentioned rights that the court continuously uncovers. The Amendment’s negligence and contradiction make it seem incapable of practical interpretations.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Goldberg explicated the constitution as “the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive” (“Griswold v. Connecticut”, 2022). This Amendment shows that the constitution’s authors recognized some rights that were not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments. Marital privacy rights are examples of what the Ninth Amendment serves and protects.

Interpretation of the Arguments in the Griswold v. Connecticut Case

There is known concern that without the Ninth Amendment, the courts would be oppressive and obtain too much power that could corrupt. At the same time, drafting every individual’s right in the Bill of Rights is nearly impossible. The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (“Griswold v. Connecticut”, 2022). The Ninth Amendment was passed to restrict the government’s power by protecting the rights of the people that have not been listed. The lack of complete contexts contributes to controversies surrounding the Ninth Amendment to support it. Therefore, the interpretation may be subjective rather than objective, which causes a difference in points of view. For instance, in the Griswold v. Connecticut case, the majority mainly focused on the Fifth Amendment and not the ninth because of how vague the arguments would come off when used. Historically, courts have intentionally avoided the Ninth Amendment, opening the opportunity of employing the Amendment provided with other meanings to what the constitutions enlisted.

If a law applies where there is a need to include the Ninth Amendment, then textualism should not be considered. The ruling of the case Griswold v. Connecticut case needed other meanings of the constitution other than what was listed to rule. The right to privacy has been a crucial topic for debate, mainly because it was established through other amendments. This right has been the center of controversial issues linked to the right to privacy, such as abortion and gender and sexuality rights. Although the Ninth Amendment has not yet been incorporated and only applies to the federal government, it is likely to solve the discussions on which cases should be ruled with textualism and non-textualism approaches.

Personal Overview of the Ruling in the Griswold v. Connecticut Case

My stance in Griswold v. Connecticut case would be to use the ideology in the Ninth Amendment and rule against the Connecticut law on its invasion of marital privacy. This is because the concept of liberty must be that it protects personal rights and not just those written in the Bill of rights but serves even the ones that have the potential to be ruled by the court. The Connecticut law restricted the right to liberty and privacy because it interfered with the petitioners’ marital privacy. The Ninth Amendment, in this case, was to be issued to protect the married couple’s right to privacy, which the Connecticut law should not have interfered with. Since the Ninth Amendment was rarely used, the other eight Amendments were used to argue this case. During the case, the Supreme Court used a list of rights with a similar theme of privacy to overrule the case against Connecticut. The term “privacy” is broad and abstract and may have different meanings for various people. The court ruling that due process protects and serves to guard the people’s right to liberty should be ranked as fundamental.

In conclusion, the non-textualist approach to interpreting the law was more suitable for ruling the Griswold v. Connecticut case. When ruling cases involving fundamental human rights, it is essential to expound the law according to how the initial lawmakers intended. The dispute between Justice Griswold and Justice Black mainly emanated from the vagueness of the Ninth Amendment and the broadness in the aspect of privacy. Ultimately, the judgment relied on the contents of the eight Amendments regarding the concept of the right to privacy.

Reference

Griswold v. Connecticut. (2022). FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Findlaw. Web.