Question

\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) the decision used liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendments authors 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 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.

Explanation:

Strict constructionism focuses on the literal meaning of the law without delving into unstated intentions. The decision here refrains from deciphering the unspoken intent behind the Fourteenth Amendment (like aiming for social equality beyond legal equality) and just looks at the surface - that separation laws (e.g., separate schools) don't imply inferiority and are within state power. This is in line with strict constructionism. Liberal constructionism would involve more interpretation of underlying or broader intents. Also, the text doesn't support the idea of citing a precedent of "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" (which was from a later case, Brown v. Board of Education) or explaining federal power over state education legislation in this context.

Answer:

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