Erwin N. Griswold Quotes

The Constitution nowhere mentions a specific right of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life, but the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights

A right of privacy doesn't emerge from any single part of the Constitution. The right of privacy emerges from the Constitution as a whole.

This right to privacy ... doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold–Griswold was the contraceptive case–and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more ...this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, 'Well, it's my individual freedom.' Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

I like my privacy as much as the next one, but I am compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific Constitutional provision.

The Constitution protects individual decisions in matters of childbearing from unjustified intrusion by the state ….The right to privacy in connection with decisions affecting procreation extends to minors as well as adults.

There is not a syllable in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to spy on civilians.

The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.

Before the American Revolution, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures had slight existence. British policies assaulted the privacy of dwellings and places of business, particularly when royal revenues were at stake.

The Constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.

I'm tired of being considered some kind of criminal or dangerous throwback for no other reason than that I value, exercise, and defend my rights under the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The critical point is that the Constitution places the right of silence beyond the reach of government.

What vested rights so high or so sacred as a man’s right to himself, to his wife and children, to his liberty, and to the fruits of his own industry? Did not our fathers declare that those rights were inalienable?

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to enjoy and acquire property

The right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the most valued by civilized men.

The 5th Amendment is an old friend and a good friend. It is one of the great landmarks in man's struggle to be free of tyranny, to be decent and civilized.

Can there be any doubt that a Bill of Rights that in time of peace bars soldiers from being quartered in a home without the consent of the owner should also bar the police from investigating the intimacies of the marriage relation?

No human government has the right to enquire into private opinions ...

The Constitution is a list of things the government may not do.

The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints ... and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.

The Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact.

Can you tell me what's more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law?

I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.

Nobody needs to justify why they "need" a right: the burden of justification falls on the one seeking to infringe upon the right. But even if they did, you can't give away the rights of others because they're not useful to you. More simply, the majority cannot vote away the natural rights of the minority. Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights-older than our political parties, older than our school system.

The Constitution has a good share of deliberately open-ended guarantees, like rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches.