Which statement best identifies how the decision in the United States v. Eichmann case was a result of constitutional interpretation?(1 point)
Responses
The Supreme Court followed the Constitution exactly and no interpretations were made in this case.
The Supreme Court followed the Constitution exactly and no interpretations were made in this case.
The Supreme Court reconsidered the language of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court reconsidered the language of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Flag burning is not explicitly stated under the First Amendment but was interpreted to be a form of expression in the U.S. v. Eichmann case.
Flag burning is not explicitly stated under the First Amendment but was interpreted to be a form of expression in the U.S. v. Eichmann case.
The Supreme Court used the Flag Protection Act to make a decision
flag burning is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The statement that best identifies how the decision in the United States v. Eichmann case was a result of constitutional interpretation is:
"Flag burning is not explicitly stated under the First Amendment but was interpreted to be a form of expression in the U.S. v. Eichmann case."
The statement that best identifies how the decision in the United States v. Eichmann case was a result of constitutional interpretation is: "Flag burning is not explicitly stated under the First Amendment but was interpreted to be a form of expression in the U.S. v. Eichmann case."
In this case, the Supreme Court had to interpret the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, to determine whether flag burning is a protected form of expression. The First Amendment does not explicitly mention flag burning, so the Court had to interpret the language and intent of the amendment to decide whether flag burning should be protected under freedom of speech. Therefore, the decision in the case involved constitutional interpretation.