Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Read a random definition: Articles of Incorporation

A quick definition of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was a court case where the Supreme Court said that people have a right to privacy, even though it's not written in the Constitution. The case was about a law in Connecticut that said married couples couldn't use birth control. The Supreme Court said this law was wrong because it invaded people's right to privacy, especially in their marriage. This case helped other cases about privacy, like ones about birth control, abortion, and LGBTQ rights. The judges who agreed with the decision said that the Constitution has some rights that aren't written down, but are still important. Some judges disagreed, but most people think this case was important for protecting people's privacy.

A more thorough explanation:

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was a famous court case in the United States. The case was about a law in Connecticut that said married couples could not use any contraception. Many people challenged this law in court before the Griswold case. The Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 vote that the law was wrong because it invaded the right to privacy. The court said that the Constitution had a right to privacy, even though it did not say so directly. This case helped other court cases expand the right to privacy, like for contraception, abortion, and LGBTQ rights.

The court said that the right to privacy was not directly in the Constitution, but it was an "emanation" of other rights. The court said that the first, third, fourth, and fifth amendments all helped create the right to privacy. The court also said that the right to privacy was part of marriage, and that people had a right to privacy in their marriage even before the Constitution was written.

For example, the court said that parents had a right to decide how to raise their children, and that this was part of the right to privacy. The court also said that people had a right to use contraception in their marriage, and that this was part of the right to privacy too.

Some of the judges in the case disagreed with the decision. They said that the Constitution did not directly create a right to privacy. But most of the judges agreed that the right to privacy was important, and that it was part of the Constitution in an indirect way.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) | gross estate

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.