Explain how this decision legally interpreted the Constitution prior to the civil rights movement.

Question

The decision used strict constructionism by explaining the federal power to legislate education within state borders.
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 liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendment’s author’s intent to explain the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 1

It is important to note that the decision being referred to is not explicitly mentioned in the prompt. However, based on the given information, it can be inferred that the decision being discussed is likely Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.

Prior to the civil rights movement, the legal interpretation of the Constitution regarding issues of racial segregation relied on different aspects of strict and liberal constructionism.

The statement that the decision used strict constructionism by explaining the federal power to legislate education within state borders suggests that the Court emphasized the limited scope of federal power and interpreted the Constitution narrowly. This alignment with strict constructionism implies that the Court viewed education as primarily a state matter, and federal intervention would have been justified only if there was a clear constitutional basis for it.

On the other hand, the statement that the decision used liberal constructionism by citing the precedent of separate educational facilities being inherently unequal indicates that the Court relied on broader interpretations and expanded the scope of constitutional rights. By recognizing that separate facilities are inherently unequal, the Court acknowledged that racial segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This approach aligns with liberal constructionism, as it interprets the Constitution more broadly to protect individual rights and equality.

Additionally, the statement that the decision used strict constructionism by refraining from attempting to decipher the intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that the Court adopted a narrow approach when analyzing the historical context and purpose of the amendment. Instead, the Court likely focused more on the literal text and language of the amendment itself. This strict constructionist interpretation implies a limited scope of constitutional rights and an adherence to the original wording and understanding of the amendment.

Lastly, the statement that the decision used liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendment's authors' intent to explain the Fourteenth Amendment indicates that the Court looked beyond the literal text of the amendment and analyzed the intentions of those who drafted and ratified it. This aligns with liberal constructionism, as it involves identifying and applying the underlying principles and goals of the Constitution instead of solely relying on the words themselves.

In summary, the legal interpretation of the Constitution prior to the civil rights movement regarding issues of racial segregation often involved a combination of strict and liberal constructionism. The Court would sometimes adopt a strict constructionist approach, emphasizing limited federal power and a narrow interpretation of constitutional rights. At other times, the Court would embrace liberal constructionism, widening the scope of constitutional rights through broader interpretations and considerations of intent and underlying principles.