The 4th Amendment, which establishes requirements for search warrants based on probable cause and prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, is the only possible answer.  The other choices protect the right to bear arms (the 2nd Amendment), the right to a fair and speedy public trial (the 6th Amendment), and the right to a trial by jury in certain civil cases (the 7th Amendment). The 8th Amendment prohibits excessive bonds or fines and outlaws cruel and unusual punishment.

The answer is "A belief that courts should not reinterpret the Constitution."  Those that believe in Strict Constructionism are proponents of the view that it is not the responsibility of the courts to take liberties in interpreting the Constitution.  

The Elastic Clause, also called the Necessary and Proper Clause, states that Congress shall have the power to make any laws relating to the powers already prescribed to it under the Constitution. It is called the Elastic Clause because it greatly expanded the scope of power available to Congress.

"Original intent" is the name given to one means of interpreting the Constitution. Proponents of original intent argue that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent and motivation behind the decisions made by the Founding Fathers. Proponents of original intent might also be called "strict constructionists."

The Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government a wide array of powers, because so many things concern business that happens across state lines. The ability to do business is greatly dependent upon whether people have access to the things required to participate in business activities, particularly those that are disabled. By ensuring that people with disabilities have many of the same opportunities as those without disabilities the government is able to ensure that all people, regardless of what state they are in, have equal opportunity within the business world. The ability to regulate commerce between the states allowed Congress to step-in and pass this landmark law.

While the Supreme Court has acted quite a few times to loosen its reins over the federal government and its management of commercial activity, the Great Depression was, by far, the most decisive prompting event for the Court. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt began to pass various wide-ranging economic and welfare laws as part of his New Deal, which was intended to slow down the Depression’s ravages on ordinary citizens, the Court was at first suspicious and hostile. But by 1937, the Court had seen the wisdom in the President’s New Deal and over the course of the next several years, the Court relaxed the commercial constraints it had once placed upon the federal government, thereby allowing the President and Congress to take broad action to shore up the struggling economy, to relieve poverty, and to create job opportunities across the nation. This trend continued for several decades, but more recently, the Court has slowly begun to reverse itself and has started to revoke some of these more expansive permissions, to the pleasure of the states.

Advocates of states’ rights, as well as other individuals concerned with placing constraints upon the national government, most often cite the Tenth Amendment as the Constitution’s most powerful defense of the powers of state governments. According to the Tenth Amendment, any and all powers that the Constitution does not expressly grant to the federal government – and which are not conversely banned from state usage – “are reserved to the states respectively.” In other words, this leaves many powers not clearly described in the Constitution available to the states – in theory. In actuality, the Supreme Court has customarily disagreed; throughout the long history of disputes over power and control between the states and the federal government, the Supreme Court has most often proclaimed the federal government to be the victor. According to the Supreme Court (and other pro-national government advocates), the Tenth Amendment is trumped by the Supremacy Clause. Contained in Article IV of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause states that any laws and treaties passed in Washington, D.C. automatically overrule any state laws (just as long as the national government’s actions fall within the Constitution’s purview, of course). The Supremacy Clause sets the Constitution up as the supreme law of the land, with the federal government as the document’s most empowered enforcer. Yet this has not stopped state governments from challenging federal actions and each victory for a state has often emboldened the others.

The Supreme Court of the United States stands distinct from the other branches of government. It was created with the intent of being independent and free of political influence to enable it to rule clearly on the cases brought before it without any prejudgment or belief. While several of the answer options may seem logical, they imply a close relationship between the the Supreme Court and the Executive and Legislative Branch that is not included in the Constitution.  

Minority rights is a principle that even in a democracy ruled by majority voting, those people who are not members of the majority in belief, ethnicity, or cultural backgorund should not be shut out of the democratic process. While this is usually quite difficult to achieve, one method that can help is by creating congressional districts that are built around certain constituencies so as to insure they have representation.

"First past the post" describes a system in which elections are won by the candidate with the most votes. This is in contrast to systems where, for example, numbers of representatives are elected proportional to the share of the votes their party received. Students who know this can ignore answers that are fundamentally at odds with the American governmental system, such as the "requires nonpartisanship" and "ambiguous electoral results" answers. Then, it becomes a matter of striking out answers which are not necessarily restricted to this type of electoral system ("low voter turnout" and "electoral fraud"). This leaves us with the correct answer, marginalizing third parties.

Alternately, students can contrast the American electoral system with say, the British system of proportionate representation and find key contrasts, e.g. the relative scarcity vs. abundance of third parties.