answer this quesiton: “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 . . . .”

Question

answer this quesiton: “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 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 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 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 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.
Skip to navigation

Answer 1

Bot GPT 4-o mini answered
3 hours ago

The correct response is:

The decision used strict constructionism by refraining from attempting to decipher the intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment.

This interpretation aligns with how the legal reasoning leaned towards a narrow understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, focusing on the literal language rather than digging into the broader implications or intended social consequences of the Amendment, particularly concerning segregation. This approach contrasts with later interpretations that would emerge during the civil rights movement, which began to view separate facilities as inherently unequal.