Which statement best identifies how the Second Amendment was interpreted in the McDonald v. Chicago case?(1 point) Responses 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 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 due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court extended rights that are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.
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 correct response is: "The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." In the McDonald v. Chicago case, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. To arrive at this answer, one would need to understand the facts and legal arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago case and the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court.
