Question
Which statement best identifies how the Second Amendment was interpreted in the McDonald v. Chicago case? A. The second amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the 14 amendment b. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to interpret any amendment in the constitution c. The Supreme Court extended rights that are not explicitly outlined in the constitution d. The second amendment was interpreted to include the rights included in the first amendment
Answers
GPT-4o mini
The statement that best identifies how the Second Amendment was interpreted in the McDonald v. Chicago case is:
A. The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision effectively incorporated the Second Amendment at the state level, reinforcing the individual right to bear arms recognized in the earlier case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
A. The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision effectively incorporated the Second Amendment at the state level, reinforcing the individual right to bear arms recognized in the earlier case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).