Question

. The following transcript comes from the monumental 2008 case of Heller vs. District of Columbia. The result of this Supreme Court case determined the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. Read the statement and then answer the question that follows:

Okay. I'd like to respond—certainly, Justice Scalia. I'd like to respond to the point about the—the District of Columbia's position over the years with respect to the functional firearms ban. The Petitioners have had two opportunities to urge courts to adopt this so-called self-defense exception which they construed in the amendment. The first opportunity came in 1978 in McIntosh versus Washington, where the petitioners urged the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to uphold the law because it was irrational in their view to prohibit self-defense in the home with firearms. They deemed it to be too dangerous, and this was a legitimate policy choice of the City Council, and they actually prevailed in that view. The second opportunity that the Petitioners had to urge this sort of self-defense construction was actually in this case in the district court.


In one paragraph of five to eight sentences, evaluate whether the statement is effective in terms of ethos. Use evidence from the statement to support your answer. Use proper spelling and grammar.

Answer 1

The statement from the Heller case demonstrates ethos by showing consistency in the petitioners' historical legal stance and by referencing earlier legal decisions, which adds credibility to the District of Columbia's argument.

Step-by-step explanation:

The transcript provided from the District of Columbia v. Heller case attempts to establish ethos by referencing the legal precedents and arguments previously made by the petitioners in support of their views on gun control. By indicating that the petitioners have consistently argued against the need for a so-called self-defense exception to the firearm functional ban, the speaker reinforces the District of Columbia's longstanding position on this issue, which had also prevailed in the McIntosh v. Washington case. This consistency in legal stance could lend credibility to the District of Columbia's argument, reflecting a principled approach to policy regarding firearms. Additionally, the reference to historic legal decisions showcases an understanding of the legal framework, adding further to the ethos of the statement.