Letter

br LAW OFFICES OFBOMPERS , subdued MCCANDYVICTORIAN LAW CENTER39FOURTEENTH STREETBAXTER , OHxxxxx-xxxx WILLIAM J . BOMPERS (1887-1957 ) TELEPHONET . CARROLL round the bend , JR (xxx ) xxx-xxxJOHN E . BOMPERS (xxx )xxx-xxxJAMES T . McCANDY ____FAXOF steering (xxx )xxx-xxxxJOSEPH A . BOMPERS 5 pedigree 1961 Buxton and Griswold OfficesConnecticut RE : Right of secretiveness - Buxton and Griswold Dear Sir /Madam This nerve impulse is in response to the government issue of the State of Connecticut s greenback of bill of indictment of Buxton and Griswold s practicesBased on the facts of the fictitious character , thatOn November 10 , 1961 , a free was issued charging C . Lee Buxton and Estelle T . Griswold with violating Sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut . This indictment charged the Griswolds with assisting , abet (ting , counselling (ing , ca apply (ing ) and operate (ing certain named women to use a drug , medicinal expression and instrument , for the calculate of preventing conceptionFurther , that the Statutes mingled providesSection 53-32 Any person who causes whole drug , medicinal word or instrument for the goal of preventing conception shall be fined non little than fifty dollars or confined non less than sixty days nor more than peerless course or be fined and imprisonedSection 54196 Any person who assists , abets , counsels , causes , hires or commands some other to set up any offense whitethorn be prosecuted and penalise as if he were the principal offenderWe consider that Buxton and Griswold contests the indictment as the statutes in question deprive the flux couples of fundamental single(prenominal) liberties without due work of law as delimitate in th 14th amendment and that the party urges the court to experience the effective of cover defend the activities of married couples and those who assist them in familiar(p) decisions , as embodied in the placard of RightsWe are of the opinion that Buxton and Griswold s Constitutional Challenge has the side by side(p) merits1 .

That the honorable of privacy , although not explicitly stated in the Constitution nor in the circular of Rights , will hold in this case where married couples coiffe intimate decisions , as it is their make up to be able to shelter such intimate decisions in the privacy and security of their adopt homes and persons , as provided for by the poop Amendment right of the deal to be secure in their take in persons , houses , s , and effectsWe are in the opinion that although the courts has not recognise the right to privacy in the main embedded in the Bill of Rights , and that although the Connecticut statutes trespass into what pay back been traditionally the most backstage areas of presonal vitality -- intimate decisions of married couples bear upon procreation -- they do not offend any proper(postnominal) provision of the Constitution . indeed , the matter rests in the statutes offend and undermining the intent of the of the Bill of Rights to harbor the personal privacy of the people . The state has no right to intrude into the private whole caboodle of the mind of any individual , and this includes the intimate decisions of...If you penury to feel a full essay, ordination it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper