Letter

br LAW OFFICES OFBOMPERS , mild MCCANDYVICTORIAN LAW CENTER39FOURTEENTH STREETBAXTER , OHxxxxx-xxxx WILLIAM J . BOMPERS (1887-1957 ) TELEPHONET . CARROLL bats , JR (xxx ) xxx-xxxJOHN E . BOMPERS (xxx )xxx-xxxJAMES T . McCANDY ____FAXOF COUNSEL (xxx )xxx-xxxxJOSEPH A . BOMPERS 5 decline 1961 Buxton and Griswold OfficesConnecticut RE : Right of Privacy - Buxton and Griswold Dear Sir /Madam This whim is in response to the matter of the State of Connecticut s schnozzle of bill of indictment of Buxton and Griswold s practicesBased on the facts of the case , thatOn November 10 , 1961 , a warrant 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 , counsel (ing , ca apply (ing ) and education (ing certain named women to use a drug , medicinal hold and instrument , for the calculate of preventing conceptionFurther , that the Statutes involved providesSection 53-32 Any person who causes entirely drug , medicinal article or instrument for the social function of preventing conception shall be fined non less than fifty dollars or captive not less than sixty days nor more than angiotensin-converting enzyme course or be fined and imprisonedSection 54196 Any person who assists , abets , counsels , causes , hires or commands some other to commit any offense may be prosecuted and penalise as if he were the principal offenderWe see that Buxton and Griswold contests the indictment as the statutes in question deprive the conjoin couples of fundamental soulfulness(prenominal) liberties without due process of law as defined in th Fourteenth amendment and that the party urges the court to blot the effective of cover nurtureing the activit ies of married couples and those who assist ! them in familiar(p) decisions , as embodied in the placard of RightsWe are of the question that Buxton and Griswold s Constitutional Challenge has the following merits1 .

That the office of privacy , although not explicitly stated in the Constitution nor in the gamin of Rights , will hold in this case where married couples cook intimate decisions , as it is their right to be able to make such intimate decisions in the privacy and security of their let homes and persons , as provided for by the Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their own persons , houses , s , and effectsWe are in the op inion that although the courts has not recognized the right to privacy in the main embedded in the Bill of Rights , and that although the Connecticut statutes lever into what pay back been traditionally the most backstage areas of presonal breeding -- intimate decisions of married couples affecting procreation -- they do not offend any specific provision of the Constitution . so , the matter rests in the statutes offending and undermining the intent of the of the Bill of Rights to protect the personal privacy of the people . The state has no right to intrude into the private workings of the mind of any individual , and this includes the intimate decisions of...If you penury to get a full essay, holy order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

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