Griswold V. Connecticut And The Natural Rights Theory

The content and scope of fundamental rights are adapted to certain historical conditions, with time and space convert, the basic rights system will also change. Stationary phase openness necessarily conflict with the text of the fundamental rights, how to generate and verify a new right has become a fundamental problem in the US and the modern Constitution. As the Supreme Court explained the authority of the United States Constitution agencies when it comes to this type of case, how to ensure that is not enumerated in the Constitution of the new rights of citizens to follow the terms of the legitimacy of the constitutional text, become this paper is to explore the issue.Firstly, on behalf of the Ninth Amendment to wake logo Griswold case introduced, focusing on specific cases through the background of the times, and the Supreme Court verdict in the case of each of these three aspects Justice opinion. Griswold case ruling Justice Warren leader in period, the Supreme Court of this period in American legal history with radical freedom, respect for individual rights is known; at the same time, also in the social-liberal trend within the scope of the whole country, people’s thinking and way of life for contraception / privacy rights growing wave before the murder case of Griswold v. Ullman people demand that the case is an example of this right, although the lawsuit was eventually dismissed, but around the wave v. Ullman case unfolding controversy prelude 1960 s, the United States of liberalization reforms, people on the "birth control method," the legitimacy becomes 2increasingly questioned. It is in this social context, four years after the state of Connecticut, there were Griswold v. Connecticut case.The case of a vote of 7 to 2 in favor of the plaintiff’s verdict, Conn anti-contraception laws unconstitutional, the privacy of citizens are protected. Submissions in court, the judges’ opinions split into four, namely, Judge Douglas’ s "penumbra" said, "the principle of due process of law," Justice Harlan and other derivation "amend Article IX Goldberg and other judges Case and the Fourteenth Amendment, " the joint derivation and Blake and Stuart judges " to congressional legislation " to confirm.The reason why such a split opinion, to infer the judgment of the case has a direct relationship with the use of natural law, and therefore, the second chapter focuses on the in-depth analysis of Griswold. First and Ninth Amendment to the principles of natural law as a starting point, briefly discusses the Ninth Amendment’s birth and subsequent development, as well as the theory of natural rights is reflected in the Ninth Amendment. Ninth Amendment to develop the historical background of the time, thinking of those who drafted the principles of motion and by those who are the natural law are inextricably linked, it can be said rights reserved. Terms Ninth Amendment, it is natural Asylum rights arising under the idea.Meanwhile, substantive due process principle of the Fourteenth Amendment to the case also with the help of auxiliary. For the protection of the rights enumerated in the Constitution, it does not rely solely on the basis of an amendment to Article IX is not enough, and not only enumerate the rights protected by the Constitution of this principle is not acceptable. Although the judgment in the case Griswold not recognize the rights enumerated constitutional status, but the Ninth Amendment’s right to retain the principle does not tell us more, so the Fourteenth Amendment due process principle in Gerry Swan Stewart has also been reflected in the case. Therefore, the second chapter of the second section focuses on the development of the principles of due process, and analyzed on the specific application and the judge in the case of Griswold in the application of the principle of authority.The final section of the chapter describes the Ninth Amendment of the practical 3results in the present case- the creation and establishment of the right to privacy. Privacy is also an establishment can be said to establish the natural rights of judges, that is what design factors as well as society as a whole to adapt to the belief that the applicable applicable in a particular case. The constitutional issues will be accompanied by the advance of time and change- or at least will show people the old problems with new faces. Supreme Court judges, must try to get their old ideas or new perspectives applicable to the problems, and let this be applicable to adapt to their overall view of the Constitution.Last chapter discusses the concept of natural rights and social ethics and constitutional understanding and so on. In the history of the United States Supreme Court ruling, the court protect numerous individual citizens the right to acquire these rights, or rely on the text of the Constitution or the Constitution was understandable, but in the case of Griswold family courts to protect privacy right, from what we see in the opinion of the Court found that more reflects the traditional idea of the US Constitution- the traditional view that constitutional rights can exist outside of the constitutional provisions. These are not expressly provided by the Constitution, the right to rely on more natural rights theory, the traditional moral values and moral philosophy practices to find the entry point. This chapter from the natural rights philosophy of the United States in the field of justice, first discusses the treatment of natural law when the US Supreme Court for a judicial ruling attitude, and to discuss the main object of this paper- Case Griswold discusses grid Rees Wald case of natural law factors; thus, second section discusses the principles of natural law embodied in reality, mainly to discuss the impact of social movements from the interpretation and judge the moral constitution of these two aspects. Justices operate in a particular political locales, doing all help or hindrance to their political allies, but at the same time, the justices of the life of the world will affect their thinking on the meaning of the Constitution, with the world changes in their understanding of the Constitution will also be changed; the last section and from the sublime to the practical reality of the theory discussed in the above situation like the US Constitution in the end is how a constitution, no matter how much the face of challenge, use the old theory to explain the natural power of modern society is the most consistent with the right to require the interpretation of the Constitution.At any time, the judge can not really understand the social and political trends. Sometimes, the law judge’s interpretation will gently push the political and social development of a new direction, if the judge did not interpret the Constitution, the direction of development of society may be slightly different, but only with the social and political trends, which makes The Supreme Court made a decision one way or another.This paper concluded that many of the cases, such as Griswold case, not because of too much thanks to the Supreme Court, is a social movement, or that is the case in human history there has always been the right idea of natural rights philosophy before making the final decision of the Supreme Court, the framework of fundamental rights was thus set up.