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.

It was said to help preserve the peace and public order.

The Constitution did not protect social rights, only civil and political.

Explanation:

The Court ruled that "segregation" was "not a form of discrimination" as long as the races (blacks and whites) will have separate facilities of equal nature. It was meant to preserve peace and public order in the society. The Supreme Court ruled the constitutionality of this in the "Plessy v. Ferguson" case.

Homer Plessy was a person of mixed race. He took a train bound for Louisiana. Upon seeing a vacant seat in the whites-only car, he sat on it. The conductor insisted that he leaves the car because it was only for white people. Plessy refused because for him, it violated his right under the "Equal Protection Clause." He was then arrested.

The Supreme Court then defended by saying that the Constitution only protected the civil and political rights. It did not include the social rights. Sitting inside the train's car is a social right and it is not protected by the Constitution.

So, this explains the answer.

switch around #3 and #4

explanation:

i hope this , im not 100% on this i really hoped this

brainliest is someone you pick by simply clicking a button. it only shows up if there are two people that answered your question, then you decide who answer more accurately with detail and explanation and you give that person the title "brainliest".

i hope this your understandings.