US vs Lopez AP Government period 4

Importance/Effect of the case

Congress had had its powers expanded since the New Deal through the Commerce Clause. This case put a stop to 50 years of this expansion.

Relation to Commerce Clause

Court said that the Commerce clause allowed congress to regulate 3 things: instrumentalities of commerce, the use or channels of commerce, and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The regulation of guns in schools didn't relate to this enough.

Dissenting Opinion

Government must consider cumulative effect of regulation. Safeguarding the Education system would benefit the whole economy, therefore placing it under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause.

How is this similar/different to McCulloch v. Maryland

Similar: Both Checked the power of the two forces in a federalist system. It created more clear separation of powers between State governments and Federal governments. Different: McCulloch v. Maryland checked the power of the states over the federal government, while U.S. v. Lopez checked the power of the Federal government over the States.

Background of the Case

The Gun Free School Zone act was passed by Congress in 1990, prohibiting the possession of firearms on school property. Alfonso Lopez Jr., who was a senior in high school was convicted for possessing a firearm and bullets at his high school. Fifth Circuit appeals reversed the decision, stating that it was beyond Congress's power, the government appealed to the Supreme Court in 1994.

How is this an example of Federalism

The States and the Federal government have clear distinctions in what they are allowed to do. The overstepping of this resulted in this case, and the maintenance of State power in certain situations.

Majority Opinion

The act exceeded the powers of the Federal government listed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because it didn't "substantially affect interstate commerce," and therefore upheld the overturning of Lopez's sentence.

Arguments of the Defendant

The law is unconstitutional, is it goes beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

Arguments of the Plaintiff

The law was constitutional because the buying/selling of guns was under interstate commerce, which would then fall under the commerce clause. Claimed that gun violence hurt economic viability of communities.

Constitutional question before the court

Whether or not the regulation of firearm safety fell under the powers given to the federal government under the commerce clause.