Pagina de inicio
/
Derecho
/
Question 9 of 10 1954: In Hernandez v.Texas, the Supreme Court rules that trying a defendant before a jury that deliberately excludes members of the defendant's ethnic group violates the equal protection clause. 1996: In United States v. Virginia, the Supreme Court rules that a military school must provide women with equal treatment by admitting them to the same program as men. 2015: In Obergefell v.Hodges, the Supreme Court rules that state laws forbidding same-sex marriage violate the equal protection clause. What do the events in this timeline suggest abdut how the Supreme Court has interpreted equal protection? A. It has interpreted equal protection as applying to different groups of people. B. It has interpreted equal protection as less important in the 21st century. C. It has interpreted equal protection as not relevant to everyday citizens. D. It has interpreted equal protection as applying at the federal level, not at the state level.

Problemas

Question 9 of 10
1954: In Hernandez v.Texas, the Supreme Court rules that trying a
defendant before a jury that deliberately excludes members of the
defendant's ethnic group violates the equal protection clause.
1996: In United States v. Virginia, the Supreme Court rules that a
military school must provide women with equal treatment by admitting
them to the same program as men.
2015: In Obergefell v.Hodges, the Supreme Court rules that state laws
forbidding same-sex marriage violate the equal protection clause.
What do the events in this timeline suggest abdut how the Supreme Court
has interpreted equal protection?
A. It has interpreted equal protection as applying to different groups
of people.
B. It has interpreted equal protection as less important in the 21st
century.
C. It has interpreted equal protection as not relevant to everyday
citizens.
D. It has interpreted equal protection as applying at the federal level,
not at the state level.

Question 9 of 10 1954: In Hernandez v.Texas, the Supreme Court rules that trying a defendant before a jury that deliberately excludes members of the defendant's ethnic group violates the equal protection clause. 1996: In United States v. Virginia, the Supreme Court rules that a military school must provide women with equal treatment by admitting them to the same program as men. 2015: In Obergefell v.Hodges, the Supreme Court rules that state laws forbidding same-sex marriage violate the equal protection clause. What do the events in this timeline suggest abdut how the Supreme Court has interpreted equal protection? A. It has interpreted equal protection as applying to different groups of people. B. It has interpreted equal protection as less important in the 21st century. C. It has interpreted equal protection as not relevant to everyday citizens. D. It has interpreted equal protection as applying at the federal level, not at the state level.

Solución

avatar
Auroraélite · Tutor durante 8 años
expert verifiedVerificación de expertos
4.6 (218 votos)

Responder

. It has interpreted equal protection as applying to different groups of people.<br /><br />The events in the timeline show that the Supreme Court has applied the equal protection clause to various groups, including ethnic minorities, women, and same-sex couples, indicating a broad interpretation that extends equal protection rights to different groups of people.
Haz clic para calificar: