The supreme court under chief justice earl
warren (1953—1969) is considered one of the
most liberal in united states history because it
(1) worked effectively with lower courts
(2) gained the overwhelming support of the
american people
(3) expanded the civil rights of various groups of
people
(4) favored a strict interpretation of the
constitution

The correct answer is 3. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl  Warren (1953—1969) is considered one of the  most liberal in United States history because it expanded the civil rights of various groups of  people.

Explanation:

The Warren Court was in function from 1953 to 1969 (during the presidencies of Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson), identifying itself as an active and "liberal" court for its time, especially with respect to President Eisenhower.

Up to this moment it has been one of the most dynamic courts in history, approving favorable reforms referring mainly to civil rights. Being a court that developed during the fifties and sixties, it had to be involved in all civil movements, social liberation and nonconformity that occurred during the time to give a solution to the multiple demands, despite the apathy presented by part of President Eisenhower to solve these conflicts.

The vision of democracy by the Warren Court was the key element to achieve the approval of certain decisions in the field of race relations, the principle of equality before the law, the protection of freedom of expression and the press, cancellation of irregular legislative districts, the extension of the rights of detainees and those criminally prosecuted and the recognition of a constitutional right to privacy.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

on the morning of  july 21,  1861, general mcdowell ordered the  unionarmy to attack. it was on this hill that  confederate  colonel thomas jackson and his forces held back theunion  troops.