Which statement best identifies how the Second Amendment was interpreted in the McDonald v. Chicago case?(1 point)ResponsesThe 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 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 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 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.
1 answer
The correct 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.
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, effectively incorporating the right to keep and bear arms at the state level.
