2. would someone who was concerned that citizens' rights were being attacked support total incorporation or selective incorporation? why? (1 point)

The incorporation doctrine was adopted by the newly formed U.S nation once the Bill of Rights was established. It instituted the application of the first ten ammendments of the U.S Constitution for the states of the Union and established that citizen´s rights had to be maintained as established by the Bill of Rights. However, before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the fulfillment of these rights and duties was forced only on the federal government and the states, free from its grasp, enacted laws that violated citizen´s rights. Because of several aftereffects of this and conflicts that ensued from this violation, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1873 and it was stated that under no circumstances could the states establish laws that went against what had been stated in the U.S Constitution. This also gave further powers to the federal government to curtail the freedom of states to enable laws that violated citizen´s rights. This is why a person concerned with citize´s rights would support selective incorporation rather than total incorporation.

Someone who was concerned that citizen's rights were being attacked will support total incorporation because total incorporation will protect the Bill of Rights in all the possible combinations and permutations possible while selective incorporation may miss some laws or find some loopholes to protect you.You have to go to Supreme Court and get permission for total incorporation in your particular case.

four sitting presidents have been assassinated while in office but the first was abraham lincoln,