Anglický jazyk

Johnson, J: Griswold v. Connecticut

Na objednávku

50.22 €

bežná cena: 55.80 €

O knihe

Americans value privacy as one of their most cherished rights. yet the word "privacy" isn't even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. It took the supreme Court's ruling in "Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) to bestow constitutional protection upon this right. That remains one of the court's most hotly debated rulings and led directly to an even more controversial decision in "Roe v. Wade (1973). John Johnson's masterly critique of Griswold-"which observes its 40th anniversary on June 7, 2005-"reminds us once again of its crucial impact on both American law and society. Johnson explores "Griswold's origins in a challenge to Connecticut's 1879 anticontraception law, provides a detailed narrative of its progress, examines the unfolding of the newly secured right of privacy up to recent controversies over same-sex relations, and grounds the story in two key contexts: the struggle within one state to establish the right to birth control and the national debate over the right of privacy. He also provides important insights into the Supreme Court decision in "Poe v. Ullman (1961), which rejected challenges to the Connecticut's law and was itself immediately Challenged. In response to "poe, Planned Parenthood opened a clinic in New Haven to dispense birth control advice and devices to married women. Ten days later, a local prosecutor shut the clinic down and indicted executive director Estelle Griswold and her medical director, C. Lee Buxton. Tracing the progress of Griswold's case Johnson clarifies how privacy or "the right to be let alone" became a judicially constructed right. In one of the most idiosyncratic opinions in the Court's history, Justice William O. Douglas ruled that "emanations"from five constitutional amendments afforded protection to the right of privacy, while several other justices proposed competing rationales in support. As he unravels this fascinating tale, Johnson reveals a multifaceted decision that was not in fact the doctrinal novelty that