Amendment Of Us V Lopez In Houston
Description
Form popularity
FAQ
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; . . .
5–4 decision The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.
In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones.
The issue in this case is whether the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact a statute that makes it a crime to possess a gun in, or near, a school. . . . In my view, the statute falls well within the scope of the commerce power as this Court has understood that power over the last half century. . . .
Related Cases Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964). Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968). League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 183 (1968). Garcia v. Gregory v.
Lopez argues that section 922(q) exceeds Congress' delegated powers and violates the Tenth Amendment. The government counters that section 922(q) is a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
US v. Lopez was a landmark case as ruled that the federal government had exceeded its authority under the commerce clause.
The Framers intended the Tenth Amendment to confirm that the federal government was a limited government of enumerated powers. Any powers the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government are reserved for state and local governments.
5–4 decision Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.
