Which of the following develops a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision?(1 point)
Responses
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the legislative intent of the equal protections clause.
None of the provided responses develops a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
a b c or d
Sorry for the confusion in my previous response.
The correct answer is:
C) Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
This response provides a logical argument by stating that judicial restraint supports the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson because it involved the Supreme Court challenging the actions of both the legislative and judicial branches.
To determine which of the responses develops a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson decision, we need to understand the concept of judicial restraint and its relevance to the case.
Judicial restraint refers to a philosophy where judges limit their own power and defer to the decisions made by the other branches of government, such as the executive or legislative branch, whenever possible. It involves interpreting the law narrowly and being cautious about making significant changes or overstepping the boundaries of their authority.
In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that state laws mandating racial segregation on public transportation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause as long as the separate facilities were equal in quality. This decision established the "separate but equal" doctrine, which allowed racial segregation to persist until it was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Now, let's analyze each response in relation to judicial restraint and its support for the Plessy v. Ferguson decision:
1. "Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches."
This response implies that by not challenging the actions of the executive or legislative branches, the Supreme Court exhibited judicial restraint. However, it does not directly explain how this support the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
2. "Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine."
This response is not accurate since the Plessy v. Ferguson decision actually upheld the separate but equal doctrine, rather than invalidating it. Therefore, it does not provide a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the decision.
3. "Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches."
This response claims that by challenging the actions of the legislative and judicial branches, the decision supports judicial restraint. However, it does not provide a clear explanation of how this support is related to the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
4. "Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the legislative intent of the equal protections clause."
This response provides a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. It suggests that by challenging the legislative intent of the equal protections clause, the decision shows a cautious approach (judicial restraint) in interpreting and applying the law.
Based on the analysis provided, response 4 is the most logical choice as it explains how judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision by challenging the legislative intent of the equal protections clause.