Answer: If the Constitution forbids self-incrimination, husbands and wives should not be forced to testify against each other. The Constitution cannot possibly include all rights, so judges can create new ones based on what the founders must have been thinking
The decision in Griswold v. Connecticut was based in the idea that, if the Constitution forbids unreasonable searches, there must be a reasonable right to privacy.
Explanation:
Griswold v. Connecticut is a ruling by the Supreme Court that affirmed the constitutionality of the right to privacy. The subject of the case was a revision of Connecticut law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives.
The court almost unanimously acknowledged that the right to privacy is contained in the Constitution. However, since the guarantees of this right are not given in plain text, the judges disagreed as to which article of the Constitution should be guided in making the decision. In a convergent opinion, Arthur Goldberg based his decision on the basis of the Ninth Amendment. John Marshall Harlan and Byron White considered that the right to privacy was ensured by the right to a fair trial of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Ottomans were forced to guarantee vague “rights” to religious minorities, which in fact limited their freedoms. Instead of being allowed to rule themselves according to their own rules, all religious groups were forced to follow the same set of secular laws
