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)
A.The decision used liberal constructionism by citing the precedent of separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
B.The decision used strict constructionism by explaining the federal power to legislate education within state borders.
C.The decision used liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendment's author's intent to explain the Fourteenth Amendment
D.The decision used strict constructionism by refraining from attempting to decipher the intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. The decision used liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendment's author's intent to explain the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. The decision used liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendment's author's intent to explain the Fourteenth Amendment.
The excerpt from Plessy v. Ferguson provides insight into how the court legally interpreted the Constitution prior to the civil rights movement. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation by using a legal doctrine known as "separate but equal."
To understand how the court reached this decision, we need to analyze the options provided.
Option A suggests that the decision used liberal constructionism by citing the precedent that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. However, this is not an accurate explanation since the court did not declare that separate facilities are inherently unequal in this excerpt.
Option B suggests that the decision used strict constructionism by explaining the federal power to legislate education within state borders. However, this is also not accurate since the court did not discuss federal power or legislation in relation to education in the excerpt.
Option C suggests that the decision used liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendment's authors' intent to explain the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a plausible interpretation. The court argues that while the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment aimed to ensure equal treatment before the law, it did not intend to eliminate distinctions based on color or enforce social equality. Therefore, the court concludes that laws permitting racial separation, such as separate schools for white and colored children, are valid exercises of state legislatures' police power. This interpretation aligns with liberal constructionism, where the court relied on the intent of the amendment's authors to arrive at its decision.
Option D suggests that the decision used strict constructionism by refraining from attempting to decipher the intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment. While the court did not explicitly analyze the intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment in the excerpt, it did provide some interpretation and reasoning to support its conclusion. Thus, this option is not entirely accurate.
Based on the analysis of the options, the most suitable answer is C. The decision used liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendment's authors' intent to explain the Fourteenth Amendment.