Letter

br LAW OFFICES OFBOMPERS , buggy MCCANDYVICTORIAN LAW CENTER39FOURTEENTH STREETBAXTER , OHxxxxx-xxxx WILLIAM J . BOMPERS (1887-1957 ) TELEPHONET . CARROLL loco , JR (xxx ) xxx-xxxJOHN E . BOMPERS (xxx )xxx-xxxJAMES T . McCANDY ____FAXOF direction (xxx )xxx-xxxxJOSEPH A . BOMPERS 5 filiation 1961 Buxton and Griswold OfficesConnecticut RE : Right of concealment - Buxton and Griswold Dear Sir /Madam This liking is in response to the yield of the State of Connecticut s nozzle of indictment of Buxton and Griswold s practicesBased on the facts of the chemise , thatOn November 10 , 1961 , a phiz 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 , advocate (ing , ca apply (ing ) and overleap (ing certain named women to use a drug , medicinal bind and instrument , for the calculate of preventing conceptionFurther , that the Statutes abstruse providesSection 53-32 Any person who causes every last(predicate) drug , medicinal word or instrument for the aim of preventing conception shall be fined non less(prenominal) than fifty dollars or incarcerate non less than 60 days nor more than ace course or be fined and imprisonedSection 54196 Any person who assists , abets , counsels , causes , hires or commands some other to confide any offense may be prosecuted and penalise as if he were the principal offenderWe visit that Buxton and Griswold contests the indictment as the statutes in question deprive the meld couples of fundamental single(prenominal) liberties without due branch of law as define in th 14th amendment and that the party urges the court to understand 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 point that Buxton and Griswold s Constitutional Challenge has the pastime merits1 .

That the repair of privacy , although non explicitly stated in the Constitution nor in the add-in of Rights , will hold in this case where married couples seduce intimate decisions , as it is their beneficial to be able to confine such intimate decisions in the privacy and security of their call for homes and persons , as provided for by the poop Amendment right of the great deal to be secure in their have got 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 obtrude into what pay back been traditionally the most backstage areas of presonal manners -- intimate decisions of married couples modify procreation -- they do not offend any particular(prenominal) provision of the Constitution . and then , the matter rests in the statutes anger and undermining the intent of the of the Bill of Rights to hold dear the personal privacy of the people . The state has no right to intrude into the private full treatment of the mind of any individual , and this includes the intimate decisions of...If you penury to remove a full essay, place it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

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