Civil Rights Issues Quick Check
2 of 52 of 5 Items
Question
Read the following excerpt from Plessy v. Ferguson.
“The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of States where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced . . . .”
Explain how this decision legally interpreted the Constitution prior to the civil rights movement.(1 point)
Responses
The decision used strict constructionism by explaining the federal power to legislate education within state borders.
The decision used strict constructionism by explaining the federal power to legislate education within state borders.
The decision used strict constructionism by refraining from attempting to decipher the intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision used strict constructionism by refraining from attempting to decipher the intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision used liberal constructionism by citing the precedent of separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
The decision used liberal constructionism by citing the precedent of separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
The decision used liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendment’s author’s intent to explain the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision used liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendment’s author’s intent to explain the Fourteenth Amendment.
The correct answer is: The decision used strict constructionism by refraining from attempting to decipher the intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment.
The correct answer is:
The decision used strict constructionism by explaining the federal power to legislate education within state borders.
The correct answer is: The decision used strict constructionism by explaining the federal power to legislate education within state borders.
To understand how this decision legally interpreted the Constitution prior to the civil rights movement, it is important to look at the concept of strict constructionism. Strict constructionism is an approach to interpreting the Constitution that emphasizes a literal reading of the text and focuses on the original intent or understanding of the framers.
In the Plessy v. Ferguson case, the Supreme Court used strict constructionism by interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law but not to abolish distinctions based on color or enforce social equality. The Court held that laws permitting racial segregation, such as the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, were within the competency of state legislatures in their exercise of police power.
The Court's interpretation relied on a narrow reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing that it could not have intended to abolish all racial distinctions or enforce social equality. Instead, it allowed for separate but equal facilities, even though they were inherently unequal in practice. This interpretation supported the prevailing segregation practices of the time and limited the rights and protections of African Americans.
Therefore, the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson used strict constructionism by explaining the federal power to legislate education within state borders as a valid exercise of state police power.