Question

what idea was the decision in griswold v connecticut based upon?

• if the constitution forbids self - incrimination, husbands and wives should not be forced to testify against each
• the constitution cannot possibly include all rights, so judges can create new ones based on what the founders must have been thinking
• if the constitution forbids unreasonable searches, there must be a reasonable right to privacy
• the constitution does not meet everyone’s needs, so citizens can disregard laws when they think the government is violating their rights

Explanation:

In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy (implied by the Bill of Rights' penumbras) to strike down a law restricting contraception. The correct option is the one stating the Constitution can't list all rights, so judges infer new ones (like privacy) from the founders' intent and existing rights. Other options are incorrect: self - incrimination (Fifth Amendment) isn't the basis, the third option misstates privacy as "unreasonable searches" - adjacent (Fourth Amendment is about searches, privacy here is broader), and citizens can't disregard laws.

Answer:

The correct option is: "The Constitution cannot possibly include all rights, so judges can create new ones based on what the founders must have been thinking" (the option with the blue checkmark in the original, which is the third option in the list of choices presented, stating the Constitution - related right - creation logic for privacy).