The case of Griswold v. Connecticut is an interesting legal proceeding that has opposing views that incorporate fundamental ideas of legal naturalism. This case involved a Planned Parenthood physician who was charged for violating Connecticut law by providing a married couple a contraceptive device which by state law is illegal. During this appeal several judges share their thoughts on how this guilty verdict may or may not be in violation of the U.S. constitution. Both Justice Douglas and Goldberg’s, both in favor of reversal, arguments are consistent with Dworkin’s theories of legal naturalism. Understanding their individual decisions on the case will clearly show these consistencies.
Justice Douglas’s main argument in his decision of the Griswold v. Connecticut case is the state has intruded on personal privacy with the violation for due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and the Bill of Rights. This is supported when Douglas states “It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the
…show more content…
Goldberg argues that the violation of personal right are a violation of the Ninth Amendment, and the government or sate do not have the ability to violates these personal rights. He also explains that though the constitution states that the federal government should not infringe on the state’s actions the Fourth Amendment binds the state to the federal governments will. The is supported by Goldberg’s statement “Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement”. Both Douglas and Goldberg’s decisions show consistencies with Dworkin’s idea of legal