Homework: 14 th questions for Wednesday; test Friday FrontPage: Where are the following rights mentioned in the Constitution? Privacy? Abortion? Physician-assisted suicide? Gay marriage? A penumbr(ell)a? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. How would you translate this amendment? Purpose: Why do you think the 9 th Amendment was added to the BoR? To ensure that the rights and protections given Americans would not be limited to only those rights specifically written down in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Some Framers, especially Madison, believed that: Including a specific list of rights/protections might actually be counterproductive, because rights not included might be infringed upon or denied in the future. That to protect Americans, an amendment of construction should be included that would provide for additional rights/protections not yet mentioned. This amendment has come to form the basis of many of the most personal and controversial rights that Americans have been granted The creation of these new rights typically involves combining rights already contained in the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Chemistry Adding together rights/protections, along with the 9 th amendment, to create new rights/protections 1) Judicial Activism - willing to depart from precedent, or rule in opposition to perceived constitutional/ legislative intent. Protect or expand individual rights by CREATIVE and BROAD interpretation of the Constitution; Justices see themselves as having an obligation to influence POLICY Tendency to OVERTURN acts of the legislative and executive In a sense, reading into the Constitution. 2) JUDICIAL RESTRAINT reluctance to declare laws/actions unconstitutional unless the conflict between the law and the Constitution is obvious. STRICT view of the Constitution and the rights/protections it offers Justices see themselves as having no role in making LAWS/POLICY Tendency to UPHOLD acts of the legislative and executive unless they specifically violate some part of the Constitution or BoR. Griswold was Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. She gave information, instruction, and advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold was convicted under a Connecticut law which made it a crime to provide counseling and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. She challenged the law, claiming that the law violated her Constitutional rights. Question Presented: Does the Constitution guarantee the right to a married couples access to information about contraceptives? No, the Constitution makes no mention of the right to marital, or other, privacy However, the Supreme Court determined that Connecticuts law was Unconstitutional Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void. Thus, this decision created the right to privacy The Right to PRIVACY = 9 th + 4 th + 3 rd + 1 st Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. Roe challenged the law, claiming that it violated her personal rights. Question Presented: Does the Constitution prevent a state from making laws that restrict a private matter (in this case, an abortion)? NO, the Constitution makes no mention of abortion. Therefore, it would seem that states are free to restrict this practice. The Supreme Court determined that the Texas law was Unconstitutional The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourth and Ninth Amendments. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling. Effect of the decision: The Supreme Court essentially forced states to permit first trimester abortions. The second and third trimesters were still open for limitation. Thus, the Constitution prevents states from infringing upon the right to an abortion. As with guns, common sense limitations are permitted, however. Homework: 14 th questions due Wednesday; test Friday FrontPage: NNIGN In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act, the first state law authorizing physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients. Attorney General John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that physician-assisted suicide violated the federal Controlled Substances Act, and that he would prosecute doctors under the federal law. Oregon challenged this action by the government. Question Presented: Does the Constitution guarantee the right to die (right of states to make laws allowing physician-assisted suicide)? No, it makes no mention of this right. On the other hand, does the Constitution give the government the power to limit this right? The Supreme Court determined that the federal governments actions were.. Unconstitutional Effect of the decision: Oregons assisted suicide law was allowed to stand; the Court essentially said that states could legislate either way. **To this day, only 4 jurisdictions in the world allow for euthanasia Oregon, Washington, Belgium and the Netherlands. PA and 47 other states have laws that make physician-assisted suicide essentially the same as a murder. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman Note: PA has adopted DOMA as its own law regarding marriage; and also an amendment is pending in the state legislature to define marriage in the same way. It is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth. Could this law be challenged on constitutional grounds?