The Changing Character of Iranian Foreign Policy

/in /by

Include all 3 readings.

 

Excerpt of “His Master’s Orders” from “All the

Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of

Middle East Terror” By Stephen Kinzer

 

Critique of Kinzer by David Pryce-Jones in “The

National Review”

 

2

“The Changing Character of Iranian Foreign

Policy,” by Graeme A.M. Davies in Foreign Policy

in Comparative Perspective

 

 

No formal citation is required other than a

parenthetical page number in-text when referencing course readings. A references page is not required.

 

Prompt: “To what extent have international factors influenced the development of Iran? Have these factors overpowered domestic factors? Why or why not?” Outside research for this response paper is welcome but not required. Please use 3 assigned reading

6/25/2018 National Review: A Very Elegant Coup – “All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” – Book Review

https://web.archive.org/web/20040910113258/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_17_55/ai_107223571 1/3

Advanced Search Home · Help

Content provided in partnership with

 

A Very Elegant Coup ­ “All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” ­ Book Review

National Review,  Sept 15, 2003  by David Pryce­Jones

 

All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror,

by Stephen Kinzer (Wiley, 272 pp., $24.95)

In the summer of 1953, the CIA and Britain’s MI6 arranged a coup in

Tehran. The Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, appeared to be

opening his country to the Soviets, and the objective was to overthrow him.

The coup succeeded brilliantly. Mossadegh spent the rest of his life on his

country estate; Iran remained a strong Cold War ally of the West. And a

myth central to the Left took lasting shape: The CIA is thuggish, arrogant,

immoral, and ­­ finally ­­ stupid, because interventions of that sort prove

counterproductive. No matter how many countries the Soviet Union might

subvert, in this view, the United States should never interfere in other

peoples’ internal affairs. This myth is being revived forcefully, now that the

U.S. has gone far beyond staging a mere coup in order to keep the peace in

many trouble spots, including Iraq.

Stephen Kinzer is a New York Times correspondent who prefers to deal in

myth rather than consider realities. Everything that has ever gone wrong

with Iran, he thinks, is the fault of the British. Admittedly, the British had

discovered Iran’s oil resources, and developed the huge Anglo­Iranian Oil

Company ­­ but they did this only to exploit Iran’s wealth. In the face of

these colonialists, the Iranians could do nothing except grow angry.

Righteous indignation bubbles out of Kinzer.

It might all have been so different ­­ because, in its hour of crisis, Iran

produced Mossadegh, whom Kinzer in awe and trembling more than once

calls a titan, a towering figure, “one of history’s most gifted visionaries.” A

tall man with a stoop and the lugubrious appearance of a vulture,

Mossadegh was an aristocrat, educated in France and Switzerland.

Breathless, resting on a cane, in and out of clinics, bursting into tears or

fainting dead away at well­chosen moments, he acted out a high­class

melodrama all his own. Between the wars, as a member of the rubber­

stamp Iranian parliament, he began his lifelong challenge to the Pahlavi

shahs in power since 1926. If they could rule, he believed, so could he.

In pre­Pahlavi days, shahs of Iran had engaged in incessant warfare with

their neighbors, the rival Muslim rulers of Ottoman Turkey and Afghanistan,

and the czars of Russia. Making and breaking treaties, losing territories

Print friendly    Tell a friend    Find subscription deals

IN

YOU ARE HERE: Articles > National Review > Sept 15, 2003 > Article

 

SEP NOV

10 2004 2007

40 captures

� ⍰❎ f �

▾

 

 

6/25/2018 National Review: A Very Elegant Coup – “All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” – Book Review

https://web.archive.org/web/20040910113258/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_17_55/ai_107223571 2/3

steadily (especially to Russia), these shahs weakened ­­ and took their

people down with them. Fearful of this decline and the corresponding

superiority of the West, reformers in Iran, like those in Ottoman Turkey and

czarist Russia, proposed programs of constitutional reform. Power struggles

followed between reformers and the shah, the sultan, and the czar they had

in their respective sights. The autocrats duly fell, to be replaced by Reza

Pahlavi, Ataturk, and Lenin.

An upstart risen from the ranks, Reza Shah Pahlavi seized power in a coup.

He set about westernizing Iran, with no regard for Islamic sensibilities.

When he made the crucial mistake of backing Hitler, the British summarily

ejected him in favor of his son Mohammad Reza. Lenin’s successor, Stalin,

soon proved to be every bit as acquisitive as the former czars, and during

and after World War II he contrived to set up a puppet republic in northern

Iran, and to organize the Communist Tudeh party in his support. Under

British pressure, Stalin reluctantly withdrew. In spite of the doubts they had

about the Pahlavis, Kinzer’s colonialist British maintained Iran’s territorial

integrity for the sake of order.

Mohammad Reza Shah was still young and inexperienced, and Mossadegh

judged that the surefire way to overthrow him was to attack the British. He

therefore called for the nationalization of Anglo­Iranian. This brought

enthusiastic and often violent mobs out into the street. The British refused

to make real concessions to Mossadegh, and Kinzer may be right that, since

they had already retreated from India and Palestine, this was impossibly

inflexible of them. But Mossadegh never had any intention of compromising;

he was banging the nationalist drum for all he was worth.

Britain and the U.S. understood that the likeliest outcome of Mossadegh’s

cunning introduction of disorder was the downfall of the shah, and the

creation of a void in which the Communists would assume power. In that

event, Iran would find itself frogmarched into the Soviet bloc. China had just

gone Communist, and the Korean War was not yet stabilized. The recently

promulgated Truman Doctrine stated that the U.S. would come to the

defense of any people threatened by Communism. President Truman and

Britain’s Clement Attlee discussed the use of force in Iran, only to reject it in

the hope that the whole issue would somehow resolve itself. The election of

Churchill in Britain and Eisenhower in the U.S. then brought into office two

men who did not hesitate to enforce order. They agreed that a coup would

serve the purpose better than a military expedition. The CIA officer chosen

to direct it was Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt.

Quietly and methodically, Roosevelt coordinated his plans in Tehran with

politicians and army officers who were anti­Communist and loyal to the

shah. They were able to manipulate the mob against Mossadegh, much as

he had manipulated it against the shah. Surprisingly, Mossadegh did not

suspect what was happening, and lost his chance to take the police

measures that might have saved him. In contrast, the shah immediately

concluded that Mossadegh would succeed, and fled in panic in a private

plane to Baghdad. Kinzer relies on rather well­known secondary sources but

gives a thorough and useful account of the mechanics of the coup, even if

he cannot resist sneering at its executors.

In the era of Nasser, Sukarno, and Nehru, the defeated Mossadegh became

a symbol of the nationalist hero done down by wicked imperialists. When the

shah returned from Baghdad, he misread the outcome of the coup as

evidence of his popularity; he came to believe that he could modernize Iran

as he saw fit. In reality, he proved a rather weak man, vain, unwilling or

SEP NOV

10 2004 2007

40 captures

�

▾

 

 

6/25/2018 National Review: A Very Elegant Coup – “All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” – Book Review

https://web.archive.org/web/20040910113258/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_17_55/ai_107223571 3/3

 

unable to be a benevolent autocrat or, alternatively, to introduce the

constitutional reforms that had been in the air for most of a century. So he

brought on his own head the successful revolution that Ayatollah Khomeini

managed in 1979. A Shia divine and a forbidding personality, an autocrat

through and through, Khomeini set up a religious dictatorship and reversed

as much westernization as possible.

None of that would have happened, Kinzer likes to think, if the CIA had not

frustrated Mossadegh. This is simplistic, not to say fanciful. Order was

preserved in Iran at a time of emergency, just as military intervention in

Iraq is establishing order in today’s uncertain world. According to

intelligence reports, the ayatollahs are likely to have a nuclear weapon

within 18 months, endangering their own people and many others.

Preservation of order may then require measures larger in scale and far

more costly in every way than Kermit Roosevelt’s elegant coup.

COPYRIGHT 2003 National Review, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group

All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (Book) / Reviews RELATED TERMS

 

 

IN

©2004 LookSmart, Ltd. All rights reserved. ­ About Us · Advertise with Us · Advertiser Log­in · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service

SEP NOV

10 2004 2007

40 captures

�

▾

Criminal Law Quiz DUE In 8 Hours

/in /by

n presenting an affirmative defense, the defendant admits doing the act as accused. Select one: True False

Question 2 Which of the following is not a legal excuse for crime? Select one: a. entrapment. b. self-defense. c. duress. d. involuntary intoxication.

Question 3 An agreement to commit a crime is a: Select one: a. complicity crime. b. solicitation. c. conspiracy. d. vicarious liability offense.

Question 4 The modern right to use force against those unlawfully entering the person’s home generally Select one: a. does not include deadly force. b. requires that the intruder specifically threaten the occupants of the home. c. applies only to nighttime intrusions. d. does not include defense of the curtilage.

Question 5 Most states use some version of the Model Penal Code test of insanity. Select one: True False

Question 6 Distinguish between true defenses and failure-of-proof defenses.

Question 7 Which of the following is recognized as a valid consent defense situation in most states?

 

 

Select one: a. a person consents to be killed b. a person consents to a crime being committed upon their children c. a person consents to the use of their car for an illegal street race d. a person consents to participating in a sanctioned boxing match and is injured during the bout

Question 8 Insanity is an example of a justification defense. Select one: True False

Question 9 In most jurisdictions, the person’s belief that self-defense was necessary must be: Select one: a. accurate. b. subjectively reasonable. c. empirically verifiable. d. objectively reasonable.

Question 10 What are the elements of self-defense?

Question 11 At common law, voluntary intoxication was not a defense. Select one: True False

Question 12​Name and define the two most important categories of true defenses. affirmative criminal defense​ is a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant’s otherwise unlawful conduct. the insanity defense​, is an affirmative​ ​defense​ by​ ​excuse​ in a​ ​criminal case​, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions due to an episodic or persistent​ ​psychiatric disease​ at the time of the criminal act

Question 13 Which of the following is not a perfect defense?

 

 

Select one: a. insanity b. choice-of-evils c. self-defense d. defense of others

Question 14 Most defendants who utilize the insanity defense do so successfully. Select one: True False

Question 15 At common law, children under seven years of age could not be guilty of a criminal offense. Select one: True False

Question 16 Bernhard Goetz (the “subway vigilante”) was acquitted of the assault charges but convicted of a weapons offense. Select one: True False

Question 17 The choice of evils defense is also known as the general principle or defense of: Select one: a. emergency. b. compulsion. c. duress. d. necessity.

Question 18 The _____ of accomplice liability is frequently defined as aiding, abetting or assisting another to commit a crime. Select one: a. mens rea b. circumstances c. concurrence d. actus reus

 

 

Question 19 The Model Penal Code’s test of insanity is known the “________” rule. Select one: a. irresistible impulse b. substantial capacity c. McNaghten d. right-wrong

Question 20 The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that vague laws do not violate the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. Select one: True False

Question 21 In the 1980s, the federal government and many states changed their insanity defenses after the insanity acquittal of: Select one: a. Bernhard Goetz. b. John David Hinckley. c. Lorena Bobbitt. d. Daniel McNaghten.

Question 22 The right-wrong test of insanity is referred to as the ________ rule. Select one: a. McNaghten b. Federal c. Durham d. Substantial Capacity

Question 23 For affirmative defenses, the burden of production is on the defendant. Select one: True False

Question 24

 

 

The modern approach to criminal complicity Select one: a. retains the common law terminology of accessories before the fact. b. eliminates the principal classifications, but retains the accessory classifications of the common law. c. maintains most of the common law categories. d. classifies those involved as either principals or accessories.

Question 25 A person cannot lawfully use force now to prevent against a future attack. Select one: True False

Question 26 Which of the following would be a valid choice of evils defense? Select one: a. a person destroys a house to prevent the spread of fire to a hospital and other houses. b. a person destroys a school building because a criminal inside threatens to burn down the building. c. a couple robs a bank to obtain money to buy food for their children. d. a person assaults a shoplifter to prevent loss of the property.

Question 27 To have a valid defense asserting the defense of others, the Select one: a. defendant must have a special relationship to the person defended. b. person defended must ask for assistance. c. defendant must personally know that the force being used against the person defended is unlawful. d. person defended must have a right to defend themselves against their aggressor.

Question 28 The defense of duress cannot be used in murder prosecutions. Select one: True False

Question 29 In most jurisdictions, to establish the duress defense, the defendant must show that the threat of harm against him or her was:

 

 

Select one: a. reasonable. b. foreseeable. c. contingent. d. imminent.

Question 30 Under the McNaghten rule in an insanity defense, the defendant is legally insane at the time of the crime, if, because of a mental disease or defect he does not know that what he is doing is wrong, or does not know: Select one: a. that the behavior is against the law. b. the identity of the victim c. the nature and quality of the act. d. that he has a mental disease or defect.

Question 31 To be lawful, the amount of force used by the defender must be reasonably necessary to defend against an imminent threat or attack. Select one: True False

Question 32 Smith and Jones are opponents in an unscheduled, unsupervised and non-refereed game of basketball at Reed Gym. Both are feeling the pressures of finals week, and their play is more aggressive than usual. As the game progresses, Smith’s teammate Miller warns Smith that Jones is getting really wild, and to watch out for elbows while rebounding. A short time later, there is a struggle for a loose ball. In the struggle Jones unintentionally strikes Miller in the head, and Miller’s face is scratched. Miller composes himself and returns to the game. A few minutes later Jones elbows Smith. Smith shouts, “I’ve seen enough,” and he hits Jones twice in the face. Jones falls to the floor, his nose broken. The police arrive and take statements. Jones is cited for battery against Miller, and Smith is arrested for aggravated battery against Jones. What is likely to become of Smith and Jones? Will they be convicted? Why or why not?

Question 33 Peggy commits an armed robbery. A few weeks beforehand, she bought the firearms from Sally, who knew Peggy’s purpose. Sally has no other involvement in the robbery. Under the common law approach, Sally is a/an

 

 

Select one: a. accessory after the fact. b. principal in the second degree. c. principal in the first degree. d. accessory before the fact.

Question 34 At common law, there were ________ categories of parties to crime. Select one: a. 1 b. 2 c. 4 d. 3

Question 35 Bob robs a liquor store. Bill waits outside as a lookout. Under the common law, with regard to the liquor store robbery, Bill is a/an Select one: a. principal in the second degree. b. principal in the first degree. c. accessory after the fact. d. accessory before the fact.

Question 36 An accessory after the fact is a person who intentionally counsels, solicits, or commands another in committing a criminal act. Select one: True False

Question 37 A defendant’s mere presence at the scene of a crime is enough to establish accomplice liability only if Select one: a. the defendant does nothing to prevent the crime. b. the defendant fails to protect certain vulnerable victims. c. the defendant makes a video recording of the crime. d. the defendant flees upon approach of the authorities.

Question 38

 

 

In Idaho and many other jurisdictions, the crime of conspiracy requires both an agreement to commit a crime and Select one: a. incriminating testimony from a co-conspirator. b. completion of the intended crime. c. an overt act in furtherance of the intended crime. d. testimony from an unbiased witness.

Question 39 All of the following are factors that a court will consider in deciding whether to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer a youthful offender to adult proceedings, EXCEPT: Select one: a. the extent of aggression and violence in the charged offense. b. the juvenile’s prior record of delinquency. c. the juvenile’s sophistication and maturity. d. the juvenile’s educational history.

Question 40 The insanity defense looks at the defendant’s mental state at the time of trial. Select one: True False

Question 41 Albert wants some methamphetamine. He tells Benny to get some for him, “or else.” Benny doesn’t really want to do this, but he owes money to Albert, and Albert is a violent and scary man. So, Benny asks Charlie to “cook” up some of the drug. Benny buys the ingredients and offers to pay Charlie $100 to make a batch. Charlie was a Nobel Prize winning chemist before a lab accident removed part of his brain and much of his sanity. Charlie still loves playing in his lab, and he is fond of money, so he agrees. However, in his scatterbrained state, he is sidetracked by a fascinating chemistry question while working on the process, and instead of meth he makes marshmallows. Angry and afraid, Benny takes the $100 he intended to pay to Charlie and goes to Dave. Benny gives the $100 to Dave, who hands over about $50 worth of meth which Benny gives to Albert, who seems satisfied for now. Possession, manufacture and distribution of meth are all crimes. What are the potential criminal responsibilities of the above-named characters, and what defenses, if any, are available to them? Use either a common law or a modern approach in your analysis.

Question 42 At common law, the right of self-defense Select one:

 

 

a. was asserted successfully in most cases of interpersonal violence. b. was available only to the nobility. c. allowed the defendant to “stand his ground” before resorting to force. d. carried a duty to retreat “to the wall” before resorting to force.

Question 43 At common law, a person who acted as a get away car driver for another criminal would be an accessory in the second degree. Select one: True False

Question 44 The right to use deadly force to defend your own home was not recognized at common law. Select one: True False

Question 45 The initial aggressor or attacker can never claim self-defense. Select one: True False

Question 46 To provide a valid consent defense, the consent of the victim must be: Select one: a. objectively reasonable and imminent. b. given after the crime occurs. c. knowing and voluntary. d. in writing and authorized.

Jewish Gangsters Final Paper

/in /by

Each student will be required to write a research paper on any subject, theme, topic, or period covered in the readings from week 5 to week 12.  The paper should be double spaced, 5 pages in length, and contain source notes.

Attached is class syllabus to see what was discussed in week 5 through 12 as well as the associated documents from those weeks.

My topic can you write about Jewish Gangsters and their significance during the Prohibition period in the U.S..  I attached those weeks documents but you can also pull from other sources you find online. Feel free to do a loose response to the question and add facts that you may find online which are not in the documents.  Make sure you focus on a topic similar to the question at hand though, doesn’t have to be the exact topic I suggested as long as it is related and a specific topic.

There will be interesting documents and facts online that you should add but please also source some from the documents below.

Justice William O. Douglas, Majority Opinion

/in /by

Background

Throughout the more than two centuries since the ratification of the US Constitution, there have been “schools” of thinking about how it should be interpreted. In other words, groups of political thinkers and judges have tried to think of principles that should guide judges as they exercise this great power to interpret, or say whether a law conforms with, the US Constitution. More conservative judges tend to argue that the text of the Constitution and the previous legal decisions of the Court, or precedents, are the only things that should guide decisions. More liberal judges argue that one can not literally apply the text of the Constitution to modern cases. There is so much happening now that the Framers did not discuss or could have possibly anticipated. Thus, one must take into account broader issues when interpreting. The Constitution must be allowed to evolve with the times, and the Court must consider the public good in their interpretations.

One court case in particular highlighted the debate of original and evolving meaning in the interpretation of the Constitution — Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The state of Connecticut had a law from 1879 that prohibited couples, even married couples, from using contraceptives and physicians from prescribing them. Estelle Griswold opened a Planned Parenthood clinic in Connecticut which offered contraceptive devices to women. It was promptly shut down. She appealed to the US Supreme Court and won the right to distribute contraceptives.

The majority of judges, 7-2, argued in their opinions that the women who received the contraceptives had a “right to marital privacy.” While the word “privacy” does not appear in the Constitution, the majority argued that the penumbra, the shadow cast or the implied meanings, in the 9th Amendment, as well as other parts of the Constitution, protected people in their persons (and in their marital intimacy) from state intrusion, something Connecticut had done with this law. The minority judges responded that the majority was simply making up law. The opinions of the justices in Griswolddemonstrate the constant debate of original and evolving meaning in the US Constitution.

Source

Source 1: Justice William O. Douglas, Majority Opinion

“The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance…. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers “in any house” in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Source 2: Justice Arthur Goldberg, Majority Opinion

“ [T]he intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which, always and in every age, it has fostered and protected. It is one thing when the State exerts its power either to forbid extramarital sexuality … or to say who may marry, but it is quite another when, having acknowledged a marriage and the intimacies inherent in it, it undertakes to regulate by means of the criminal law the details of that intimacy…. In sum, I believe that the right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic — a personal right “retained by the people” within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Connecticut cannot constitutionally abridge this fundamental right, which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. I agree with the Court that petitioners’ convictions must therefore be reversed.”

Source 3: Justice Hugo Black, Minority Opinion

“[T]his Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court’s belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have. I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time, and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must, with all deference, reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change, and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people’s elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and, being somewhat old-fashioned, I must add it is good enough for me.”

Source 4: Justice Potter Stewart, Minority Opinion

“Since 1879, Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual’s moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual’s choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.
“What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy “created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.” With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.
“At the oral argument in this case, we were told that the Connecticut law does not “conform to current community standards.” But it is not the function of this Court to decide cases on the basis of community standards. We are here to decide cases “agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.” It is the essence of judicial duty to subordinate our own personal views, our own ideas of what legislation is wise and what is not. If, as I should surely hope, the law before us does not reflect the standards of the people of Connecticut, the people of Connecticut can freely exercise their true Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights to persuade their elected representatives to repeal it. That is the constitutional way to take this law off the books.”

 

Analyze the Evidence

Question

What seems to be the differences of more conservative and liberal justices with regard to the Griswolddecision?

Instructions: Fill in the chart with quotations from majority and minority opinions on these questions of constitutional interpretation. Make sure you note the name of the justice.

Questions and Evidence Chart

Can the justices see an implied meaning (penumbra) in the constitution, and what can they do?

Majority Opinion :

Minority Opinion :

Can a more flexible interpretation of the constitution hold up and, if so, what guides the interpretation?

Majority Opinion :

Minority Opinion :

If Connecticut’s law was so bad that most people in 1965 thought that Griswold’s rights were being violated, what should she do?

Majority Opinion :

Minority Opinion :

Should the justices give more deference to states like Connecticut or to individuals like Griswold?

Majority Opinion :

Minority Opinion :

What amendment seems to be most concerned in interpreting Griswold and what does the justice think is most critical in that law?

Majority Opinion :

Minority Opinion :