Originalists often hold that it is incorrect to use the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down laws that discriminate because
Question :
A right is generally defined as
Student Answer: an obligation that we have to others.
that which everybody around the world enjoys.
CORRECT a zone of protection around an interest that we would like protected.
an obligation that others have to us.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Meaning of Civil Liberties and Civil Rights.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:
Question 2. Question :
The professional qualifications model in the selection of judges holds that
Student Answer: judges should be evaluated on their ideology.
CORRECT judges should be evaluated based on their credentials.
only Ivy League trained lawyers are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
only judges with a good rating from the American Bar Association may serve.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in “The Role of Ideology.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:
Question 3. Question :
Judges espousing a philosophy of original understanding maintain that school desegregation cases decided on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment were wrongly decided because
Student Answer: the original intent of the framers was to defer to the will of legislative bodies.
we do not know that it was ever the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment to end segregation.
CORRECT it was only intended to protect the rights of newly freed slaves and not address issues of school segregation.
originalism is contrary to activism.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in “Original Understanding.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:
Question 4. Question :
Originalists often hold that it is incorrect to use the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down laws that discriminate because
Student Answer: it runs contrary to the 10th Amendment.
laws that discriminate must be said to reflect the will of the majority.
INCORRECT it was not intended to protect people against discrimination.
CORRECT it was only intended to protect the rights of newly freed slaves and no others.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Original Understanding.”
Points Received: 0 of 1
Comments:
Question 5. Question :
An appellate court that hears an appeal on a money laundering case from a district court
Student Answer: is not concerned with guilt or innocence.
can only send the case back for retrial.
CORRECT is concerned with whether proper legal procedures were followed during the district court trial.
determines the constitutionality of the law.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Appellate Courts.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:
Question 6. Question :
The Supreme Court in Whitney v. California clarified clear and present danger to mean
Student Answer: CORRECT speech so dangerous that society would immediately and irreparably harmed.
speech that protested against the Supreme Court.
INCORRECT free speech would only be dangerous if it was followed by physical acts of violence.
that only speech concerning communism was dangerous.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Abrams v. United States.”
Points Received: 0 of 1
Comments:
Question 7. Question :
Overall, we learn that civil liberties in the United States mean that
Student Answer: CORRECT there is to be a presumption in favor of individual rights, but they can be restricted for a compelling public interest.
individual rights are dependent on the will of the majority and can be changed at any time.
states and legislators are free to create barriers to education, social and financial equality.
civil liberties are absolute and unlimited.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Summary and Application.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:
Question 8. Question :
Civil rights in the United States evolved from
Student Answer: boycotts to anti-discrimination lawsuits.
CORRECT removal of barriers to access and participation to policies aimed at achieving greater equality.
matters concerning politics to matters concerning economics.
state centered policy to federal initiatives.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in “Evolving Civil Rights.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:
Question 9. Question :
Government entitlements or vouchers would most likely fall under the general category of
Student Answer: negative rights.
CORRECT positive rights.
an effort to provide all accused of a crime legal counsel.
a government-erected obstacle to an individual’s rights.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Right to Privacy.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:
Question 10. Question :
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means
Student Answer: citizens of the United States may travel across state lines without documentation.
states must all have the exact same laws as each other.
that if one state recognizes marriage all states must recognize marriage.
CORRECT that whatever recognized rights one has as a citizen must be recognized by all states.
Instructor Explanation: The answer can be found in the section “Fourteenth Amendment’s Definition of Citizenship and Equal Protection.”
Points Received: 1 of 1
Comments:
you need to check your answer and I need to study moe
more
they argue that the Equal Protection Clause was intended to ensure equal treatment under the law without advocating for a specific outcome. Originalists believe that the original public meaning of the Constitution, as understood by the framers at the time it was drafted, should guide judicial interpretation.
To understand why originalists may argue against using the Equal Protection Clause to strike down discriminatory laws, we need to look at the process they follow:
1. Identify the original public meaning: Originalists begin by identifying the original public meaning of the constitutional provision in question. They examine historical documents, such as the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other relevant debates and writings from the framers.
2. Understand the intent of the framers: Originalists seek to understand the intent of the framers when they drafted and ratified the Constitution. They look at the historical context and consider the societal norms, values, and concerns prevalent at that time.
3. Apply the original meaning: Originalists argue that the original meaning should guide the interpretation and application of the Constitution. They believe that the Constitution should be understood in its historical context and that judges should not inject their own policy preferences into their decisions.
Based on this approach, an originalist interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause may lead to a conclusion that it does not require the courts to strike down laws that discriminate. Originalists may argue that the framers did not intend for the Equal Protection Clause to be used as a tool to enforce specific outcomes or policy goals. Instead, they may contend that the provision was primarily intended to ensure that all individuals are treated equally under the law and have equal access to legal protections, irrespective of their race, gender, or other protected characteristics.
It is important to note that not all constitutional scholars or judges follow the originalist approach. Different interpretive methods, such as living constitutionalism or textualism, may offer alternative perspectives on the Equal Protection Clause and its application to discriminatory laws.