Question

read the following excerpt from plessy v. ferguson. \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 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 liberal constructionism by interpreting the amendments authors intent to explain the fourteenth amendment. the decision used strict constructionism by refraining from attempting to decipher the intent behind the fourteenth amendment.

Explanation:

The excerpt from Plessy v. Ferguson interprets the Fourteenth Amendment. Strict constructionism adheres closely to the text and intent of the law. Here, the decision refers to the "object of the [Fourteenth] amendment" (the author's intent) to explain the amendment. Liberal constructionism would involve a looser interpretation, perhaps expanding rights. But this decision is using the author's intent (a key aspect of strict constructionism in some views - looking at what the framers/those who proposed the amendment intended). It's not about federal power to legislate education in states (no such focus on federal vs state power over education legislation in the key part of the text - the key is on the amendment's object/intent). Also, it's not citing a precedent that separate facilities are unequal (in fact, it's saying separation doesn't imply inferiority - opposite of what Brown v. Board later held). And it's not refraining from deciphering intent - it clearly refers to "the object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly...".

Answer:

The decision used strict constructionism by interpreting the amendment's author's intent to explain the Fourteenth Amendment.