The statutes whose constitutionality is involved in this appeal are 53–32 and 54–196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut. … The former provides: Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.

This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation … [t]he First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion. …

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

—From Supreme Court opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Which excerpt from Marbury v. Madison established the principle being exercised in Griswold v. Connecticut?