Question: Which Supreme Court case addressed more Amendments of the US Constitution, District of Columbia v. Heller or Gibbons v. Ogden?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) , is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.  Due to Washington, D.C. 's special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, which was addressed two years later by "McDonald v. City of Chicago" (2010) in which it was found that they are.  It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. <SEP>  The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation.  Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons. <SEP> Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.  He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).  He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".  He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".  In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.  More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.  He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").  He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.  Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.  The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment. <SEP> United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931) was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the Fifth Article of the US Constitution.  The defendants had been indicted under the National Prohibition Act and were attempting to quash their indictments, arguing that the Eighteenth Amendment had not been properly ratified.  Their reasoning was that the Congress of the United States had chosen to ratify it by usage of state legislatures instead of constitutional conventions.  If this were held true, Congress would have exceeded its authority in passing the NPA.  The court did not agree, however, ruling that the Constitution explicitly authorized Congress to determine the method used in ratifying amendments.  In part, Article Five states that any amendment "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, "as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"" (emphasis added).  Furthermore, the court rejected the defendants' claim that the Eighteenth Amendment needed to be ratified by state conventions since "all [previous amendments] save the Eighteenth dealt solely with governmental means and machinery rather than with the rights of the individual citizen."  The Constitution does not make a difference between types of amendments, the court held, so the amendment, "by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution."