Constitutional Interpretation Styles Matching Exercise

Module 1: Assignment 4–Constitutional Interpretation styles matching exercise (MO4)
Due Sunday by 11:59pm
Points 6
Submitting a text entry box or a file upload
Attempts 0
Allowed Attempts 2
Instructions: Match each case description with the constitutional interpretation style. 
Submission Instructions: Complete and submit the assignment by 11:59 CST on Day 7 
Grading rubric:  One point for each correct answer. 
a. Original Intent
b. Stare Decisis
c Textualism
d. Original Meaning
D.C. v. Heller (2008) case which held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s “right to keep and bear arms” for private use.
Nixon v. United States (1993) challenged the procedures the Senate used to impeach a federal judge, Walter L. Nixon Jr. The entire Senate did not try the case; instead, a special twelve-member committee heard it and reported to the full body. Nixon argued that this procedure violated Article I of the Constitution, which states, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.”   
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) the Court’s lead plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion in  Roe v. Wade but lowered the standard for analyzing restrictions of that right, invalidating one regulation but upholding the others.
Coy v. Iowa (1988) the high court maintained that the right to face-to-face confrontation was the essential intended element of the framer’s Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) the Court reasoned that rights that are “fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty” or that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) the Constitutional Founders expected to build the ‘wall of separation’ but the greatest injury of the ‘wall’ notion,” continued Justice Rehnquist, is the mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights.