Final answer:
Depending on the nature of Helena's legal case, she could argue that either the Fifth Amendment, with its protections against self-incrimination and due process, or the Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing equal protection and due process, protects her in her case.
Step-by-step explanation:
Which Constitutional Amendment Could Helena Argue Protects Her?
The question asks which constitutional amendment Helena could argue protects her in a legal case. To answer this, we need to examine the context of Helena's case. Based on the provided information, there are a few amendments that deal with rights in legal situations:
- The Fifth Amendment provides various protections, such as the right against self-incrimination (the right to remain silent), protection against double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime), and due process of law.
- The Second Amendment protects the individual's right to keep and bear arms, typically associated with self-defense within the home.
- The Twelfth Amendment relates to the election of the President and Vice-President and is not relevant to personal legal protections.
- The Fourteenth Amendment includes the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause, which ensure all citizens are treated equally under the law and afforded fundamental fairness, respectively.
Without more details about Helena's specific situation, the most probable answer seems to be the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment, as these deal with general legal protections and due process. If the case involves personal property or self-incrimination, Helena could argue the Fifth Amendment protects her. If her case concerns equal protection under the law, she could turn to the Fourteenth Amendment for protection.