Which of the following develops a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision?(1 point)
A. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
B. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the legislative intent of the equal protections clause.
C. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine.
D. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches.
D. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches.
The correct answer is A. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
In order to determine which option develops a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision, we need to understand what judicial restraint is and how it relates to the case.
Judicial restraint is a legal principle that suggests judges should limit their own power and defer to the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches whenever possible. It is based on the belief that judges should interpret the law rather than create new laws or policies.
Now, let's analyze each option:
A. Option A states that judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches. This argument does not provide a clear explanation of how judicial restraint supports the decision. It simply states that the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
B. Option B claims that judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the legislative intent of the equal protections clause. This option suggests that the Supreme Court, by showing restraint, was able to challenge the intent behind the equal protections clause. However, this is not an accurate representation of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, as the Court actually upheld the constitutionality of segregation and did not directly challenge the equal protections clause.
C. Option C argues that judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine. This option suggests that the Supreme Court, by showing restraint and not overstepping their authority, was able to invalidate the separate but equal doctrine. This is a more logical argument that directly relates to the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
D. Option D states that judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches. This option focuses on the Supreme Court's lack of challenge to the other branches, rather than explaining how judicial restraint specifically supports the decision.
Based on the explanations provided, option C is the most logical argument that develops how judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. It relates directly to the decision's content by explaining how judicial restraint resulted in the invalidation of the separate but equal doctrine.