Amendment+9+(4)


 * Court Cases**

__Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)__ Estelle Griswold was running a planned parenthood clinic in Connecticut, which at the time was considered a criminal act. Another important person involved in the case was Dr. C. Lee Buxton, who supplied the clinic with necessary items for birth control. They were both arrested in 1965, and appealed their case to the state level at first. The state denied the request because they believed it was still against the law. Shortly after, they appealed to the U.S Supreme Court, who in a 7-2 vote, voted that the law was violating the right to martial privacy. Before this case, Connecticut was one of the only states that had the use of contraceptives banned, as most states such as New York, allowed them to be used. This is how people illegally got birth control accessories into the state.

__Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)__ Michael Hardwick was a homosexual man who worked at a gay bar in Atlanta, Georgia. He missed a court call for a charge of Public Drinking, which made the police show up at his house. As the police officer who showed up at his house entered his bedroom, they found him and a partner engaging in oral sex. This violated the Georgia Sodomy Statute, which basically said you could not perform homosexual acts with a partner. If you did such a thing, you would be facing 1-20 years in jail. Hardwick sued the attorney general of Georgia, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court. Hardwick ended up losing the case, which was a fairly big setback in the justice system of the U.S.

__Roe v. Wade (1973)__ Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee were the plaintiff's and John Tolle, Jay Floyd, and Robert Flowers were the defendant's lawyers. The court case was on state laws limiting a women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by Roe v. Wade it allowed women to make the decision. The Supreme court decided this in 1973. This law was written by the nine Supreme court Justices.

__Loving v. Virginia (1967)__ A married couple moved to Virginia they were Mildred Jeter, a black women and Richard Loving, a white man. Virginia didn't allow this so the couple was charged with inter-racial marriage. They were charged in the year of 1958. The court case ended well for Loving because he had nine votes for him and none against him.

__Roth v. US (1957)__ Roth had a book selling business in New York. He was later convicted of mailing obscene and circulars and an obscene book. His case was combined with Alberts v. California. That case was similar to Roths because he mailed similar things in the mail. The case ended in 6 votes for the United States and 3 votes Against. Argued April 22 1957 and Decided June 24 1957

__United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)__ Argued December 3, 1945 Reargued October 17, 1946 Decided February 10, 1947. In 1939 the hatch act was passed. It restricted political campaign activities by federal employees. They could also not overthrow the government. Workers were angry and hired lawyers to test the constitutionality of the Hatch Act. The supreme court was very divided and gave the decision to the majority. The constitutionality of the Hatch act upheld and the court affirmed.

__Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)__ William Baird was charged with a felony because he was handing out contraceptives at a lecture about population control. The Massachusetts’s law states that only registered doctors can give out contraceptives and they can only be given to married couples. After he was convicted an appeal caused a partial overturn. The lectures were protected under first amendment right but distributing contraceptives was still against the law.

__United States v. Fry (1975)__ Fry was put on trial for fist degree murder. He was given a blood pressure deception test and this was not used in court. The expert testimony was held inadmissable and Fry was only convicted of second degree murder.


 * Changing Interpretation**

Seeing as our cases have all game from the time period between the 1940's to the 1980's, we've came to the conclusion that the interpretation of the amendment has changed a lot over that time period. If you read the exact amendment, you'll see that basically our amendment covers all of the rights that aren't listed earlieri in the bill of rights. We found this interesting to lots of these cases simply because a lot of these cases are specifically to martial rights and sexuality rights. Over this time period specficially, we found it quite strange of the wide range of outcomes in the cases. Although a lot of them took place in different states, it was interesting to see all of these similar cases having completely different outcomes. If you would look at, for example, Eisenstadt v. Baird and Griswold v. Connecticut, they're only a few years apart, but they're very similar cases. They both included the use and distribution of contraceptives, and at the time, the distribution of contraceptives was illegal. The outcomes in these cases were different though, as the Eisenstadt case didn't change the law, but the Griswold case completely changed the law allowing the use of contraceptives. The interpretation of the law is completely based on the state and the case in itself that the law is believed to be broken.


 * Predictions**

Dalton - I predict that the law will be interpreted similar to how it has been interpreted since the 1900's. It just hasn't really changed overly lots over the last few years, and I personally believe that's because the 9th amendment is an extremely broad amendment. A lot of rights are covered under the law, major and minor alike, and I believe that due to that the law will continue to be interpreted similarly to how is has in the past. A few things that may be up in the air though under the next few years, as even right now they're up in the air, I can see lots of cases arising in state courts fighting for the rights of homosexuals, especially in the sense of marriage.

Matt - The ninth amendment can be interpreted in many different ways. Over the next ten years the interpretation will change many times. I think the main interpretation will be that a citizen will be aloud to do pretty much anything that is not illegal, hurting anyone or anything, damaging property, or inhibiting a persons free will or pursuit of happiness. Basically, anything that obeys this list cannot be tried for.

Richard - I think the law or amendment will be interpreted as if the law is not written than you can do the action. That’s what I think the law will mean to people in ten years. Then they will think they can do the actions that they want and not the actions that are right to do in public or in life. They’ll think it is okay and do it, so I think they need to express more laws so people will understand what they can or can’t do.

Devin- Personally I think that in the next couple of decades the law will be interpreted very similar to how it was in the past Century. Also I think that there will be many cases in the future about Gay marriage in certain States. I also think that there will be many new things about what a person can do without breaking the law. There will always be new things that people do that will effect the way we look at the things that citizens are aloud to do.


 * ACLU Q and A**

Q.What is your interpretation of the 9th amendment? A. I personally view the amendment as one of the more important ones. It simply is rights that are not covered in the earlier amendments, and it is important to many rights, such as marital and homosexual rights.

Q. How do you think that the 9th amendment will be interpreted in 10 years? A. Personally, I see it staying somewhat similar to what it has been over the last couple of years. The interpretation has been at slowly changing rates with homosexuals continually fighting to get homosexual marriage legalized, for example.

Q. How do you think that the 9th amendment affects today’s courts? A. It comes into play in a lot of different cases. A lot of times, cases can be brought to court and a lot of people believe rights were violated stated in previous amendments and the 9th amendment.

Q. If the 9th Amendment was never made how would the courts be different? A. There would be a lot of conflict of marital privacy rights and homosexual rights most certainly.

Q. In your opinion do you think the 9th amendment is fair? A. I do, because the rights covered in the 9th amendment can undoubtedly be of high importance to some people.