Yes, it did. It empowered the federal government to overturn a state law.
It ruled that since the right to privacy was not an enumerated right under the Constitution, it was reserved to The People,
With all due respect, the 10th reserves non-federal powers to either the states or the people. It is up to the respective states to decide how those remaining powers are divvied up. With Griswold, the Feds decided that they would make that decision. And IMO, under the 10th, they had no such authority.
Actually, Marbury vs. Madison established that in 1803.
With all due respect, the 10th reserves non-federal powers to either the states or the people. It is up to the respective states to decide how those remaining powers are divvied up. With Griswold, the Feds decided that they would make that decision. And IMO, under the 10th, they had no such authority.
That may be your opinion, and certainly you're free to argue it. But nothing of the sort was raised in the Griswold case. The Tenth Amendment isn't even mentioned.
Considering the numerous well-reasoned (and moderate) responses to this thread, it occurs to me that a separate thread could be opened that would dissect Roe and its antecedents. I know there are some keen legal and pseudo-legal minds here, and it might be a good starting point for building a case to overturn.
What do people think?