United States vs. Lopez
4
FONTS
United States vs. Lopez
Katelynn Sawyer
Significance...
The Questions...
The United States versus Lopez court case was significant because it marked the first time within half a century that the Court held Congress overstepped it's power under the Commerce Clause.
- Does the Gun-Free School Zone Act exceed Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause?
- What categories of activity may Congress regulate under its Commerce power?
The Issue...
Two Different Stories...
An Important Question...
The main argument comes into play as to whether or not the Gun-Free School Zone Act falls under the Commerce Clause of Congress. The supporters of the Act believed that guns are articles of commerce and can interfere with commerce clause. The bases of this came from the fact that violence in schools interfere with quality of education which ultimately interferes with economy. It was a far stretch, but that all in the end deals with the commerce clause. Lopez felt as if the Gun-Free School Zone Act upset federal balance and believed it was unconstitutional assertion of the commerce power. He did not believe in the Act at all.
Q: Because the Gun-Free School Zone Act exceeded Commerce Clause, what are the categories of activities Congress may regulate under its Commerce Clause?
A: There are three categories in which Congress can regulate. One is the use of channels of interstate commerce. The second is the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. The third is that Congress can regulate activities having a major relation to interstate commerce.
The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 made it illegal for any individual to knowingly possess a firearm in a school zone. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a senior at his local high school, carried a concealed and loaded handgun into the school and was arrested and charged with firearm possession on school grounds.
Works Cited...
The decision...
- billofrights.org/resources/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-cases-and-the-constitution/us-v-lopez-1995/
- www.lawnix.com
- www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_us.html
The 5 to 4 Supreme Court written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled that the Act was unconstitutional. The Act exceeded Constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause. Lopez's conviction was overturned.