Question

how did the supreme court majority argue that \separate but equal\ facilities were legal? check all that apply
it was said to help preserve the peace and public order.
it was not really enforced on a day - to - day basis.
it allegedly affected only people with a criminal record.
the constitution did not protect social rights, only civil and political rights.

Explanation:

1. For the option "It was said to help preserve the peace and public order": The "separate but equal" doctrine (from Plessy v. Ferguson) was argued to maintain social order by upholding racial segregation as a way to avoid conflicts, so this is a valid argument from the Court's majority.
2. For the option "The Constitution did not protect social rights, only civil and political rights": The Court's reasoning included the idea that the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) was about civil and political rights (like voting, legal rights) and not social rights (like access to public facilities in a non - segregated way), so they argued that segregation in social spaces (like schools, transportation) was not a violation of the Constitution as it pertained to social rights.
3. The option "It was not really enforced on a day - to - day basis" is incorrect. The enforceability of the doctrine was not part of the argument for its legality. The Court was concerned with the legality of the doctrine in principle, not its enforcement frequency.
4. The option "It allegedly affected only people with a criminal record" is incorrect. The "separate but equal" doctrine was about racial segregation and affected African - Americans generally, not just those with criminal records.

Answer:

• It was said to help preserve the peace and public order.
• The Constitution did not protect social rights, only civil and political rights.