Fairly easy question as long as you know your amendments. The answer is the 10th amendment, as it reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In somewhat plainer English, this means that any governmental power that is neither (1) given to the federal government, nor (2) forbidden to the states is given to the states or the “people” (citizens). It is for this very reason that the 10th amendment is commonly referred to as the “states’ rights” amendment.

The First Amendment concerns five different liberties that are fairly similar, including the right of the people “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Amendment does not mandate that the government need to address or address the “grievances,” but this ensures that people can still formally show their displeasure to the government.

Surprisingly, the right to freedom of speech –one of the most famous individual freedoms– was not part of the initial Constitution. Freedom of speech and others of the most well-known rights (such as freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and freedom of religion), as contained in the Bill of Rights, were all later additions to the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were some of the most vociferous advocates of the Bill of Rights and many states refused to ratify the Constitution at all unless such personal freedoms were given explicit written protection. The ten Amendments that together comprise the Bill of Rights were therefore added to the Constitution in 1791, in order to allay these fears.

The constitution as originally drafted, did not have any safeguard for individual liberties. Many objected to this, so as a condition of ratification, it was promised that a Bill of Rights would be drafted.

The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb", thus defining double jeopardy as being tried for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment provides people the right to remain silent instead of prohibiting it. Although the Bill of Rights does prohibit the use of cruel and unusual punishment, it's prohibition is under the Eighth Amendment. The Bill of Rights guarantees a jury of your peers, not prohibits it.

It is indeed true that originally, many Congressmen and federal judges had doubts as to exactly how far beyond the national government’s scope the Bill of Rights could legally reach. In fact, in 1833 the Supreme Court even ruled that the Bill of Rights only imposed limitations on the federal government, leaving the states and local administrations exempt. However, the Court quite clearly found this stance to be deficient, as did other sectors of government, and so in a further case (which proceeded in 1925), the Supreme Court first established the so-called incorporation doctrine. Citing the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court defined the incorporation doctrine as the principle by which the Bill of Rights could be applied beyond the national government, to the conduct of state and local governments as well. Especially relevant for the doctrine’s justification is the Due Process Clause, contained in the Fourteenth Amendment, which prevents either state or federal governments from infringing on any individual’s life, liberty, or property rights without due process of the law (meaning that special legal permission must be obtained, usually under severe circumstances).

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."