1.in the case of mcdonald vs. Chicago is the court interpreting the scope of the second amendment and the right " to keep and bear arms" or is it evaluating the meaning of the 14^th amendment? Or both?

2.In justice steven's dissent, he considers the case a question of substantive due process. What does he mean. Does justice alito disagree with that characterization? Does the question of whether the issue is procedural or substantive due process determine the outcome.

3.How do justice alito and justice stevens disagree on how the incorporation doctrine is to be enforced? Is that disagreement, ultimately, the dividing line between their opposite conclusions?