Login or Sign Up
Menu
Ask a New Question

Which statement best identifies how the Second Amendment was interpreted in the McDonald v. Chicago case?(1 point)

Responses

The Supreme Court extended rights that are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court extended rights that are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court does not have the authority to interpret any amendment 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 rights included in the First Amendment.
The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the rights included in the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The correct answer is: "The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The McDonald v. Chicago case, decided by the Supreme Court in 2010, addressed the issue of whether the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments. The Court held that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that state and local governments must also respect the right to keep and bear arms.