Idea #1 (p.198)
“We think the appellants have standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship.”
Idea #2 (p.200)
“The Ninth Amendment provides: ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’”
Idea #3 (p.200)
“In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion. In like context, we have protected forms of “association” that are not political in the customary sense, but pertains to the social, legal, and economic benefit of the members.”
Idea #4 (p.201)
“And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship."
Idea #5 (p.201)
“Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of martial bedroom for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship."
Black
Idea #1 (p.202)
“The two defendants here were active participants in an organization which gave physical examinations to woman, advised them what kind of contraceptive devices or medicines would most likely to be satisfactory for them, and then supplied the devices themselves, all for a graduated scale of fees, based on family income. Thus, these defendants admittedly engaged with others in a planned course of conduct to help people violate the Connecticut law.”
Idea #2 (p.203)
“The Court talks about constitutional ‘right to privacy’ as though there is some constitution provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the ‘privacy’ of individuals. But there is not.”
Idea #3 (p.204)
“I think that if properly construed, neither the Due Process Clause nor the Ninth Amendment, nor both together, could under any circumstance be a proper bias for invalidating the Connecticut law.”
Idea #4 (p.205)
“My point is there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over the acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Courts belief that the legislative polices adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational.”
Idea #5 (p.206)
“And so I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law.”
I found the argument of author William O. Douglas more convincing. He ruled that married people reserve the right to marital privacy. He clearly states the law violated the married couples right as citizens to have their own space and privacy; as well as adds insight as to why. Douglas stated in his article, “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of martial bedroom…? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” (p. 201) He argued that the right to privacy is fundamental. Due to the fact that the U.S Constitution contains no express to the right to privacy, Douglas used the Ninth Amendment in his favour by interpreting it as a justification to protect the privacy of married couples. It is pointed out: “The Ninth Amendment provides: ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’” (p. 200) All the amendments can be applied against the states due to the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the right to privacy in the married couples home is considered fundamental and cannot be infringed. The married couples use of contraception is another fundamental right that the marital couple obtains and should not be punished for.