Which statement best identifies how the Second Amendment was interpreted in the McDonald v. Chicago case?
The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the rights included in the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court extended rights that are not explicitly outlines in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to interpret any amendment in the Constitution.
The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The statement that best identifies how the Second Amendment was interpreted in the McDonald v. Chicago case is: "The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
To determine the correct answer, we need to understand the context and outcome of the McDonald v. Chicago case.
McDonald v. Chicago was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2010. It involved a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban, which was argued to violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
In this case, the Court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, not just the federal government.
Given this information, the statement that best identifies how the Second Amendment was interpreted in the McDonald v. Chicago case is:
"The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."