U. S. v. Lopez 514 U. S.
549 (1995), Vote of 5 to 4, Rehnquist for the court. Congress in 1990 enacted the Gun-Free School Zone Act, making it a federal offence to possess a firearm in a school zone. Congress relied on the authority of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify passage of legislation as a way of stemming the rising tide of gun related incidents in public schools. In 1992 Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a senior at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez and discovered that he was carrying a.
38 caliber handgun and five bullets. A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Lopez, who then moved to have the indictment dismissed on grounds that the federal government had no authority to legislate control over the public schools. At a bench trial, the federal district court judge found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and two years’s upervised release. Lopez then appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction and held the Gun-Free School Zone Act unconstitutional as an invalid exercise dy congress of the commerce power. The Lopez case posed the question of the extent to which Congress could exercise authority over street crime and, in so doing, intrude into constitutional space traditionally occupied by the states. Since the New Deal of the 1930’s, the Supreme Court had accepted that Congress had broad authority to regulate virtually every aspect of American life under the cover of the federal Commerce Clause.
The Essay on Federal Vs State Courts
The United States is at the forefront of modern democracy. Its unique three branched system allows the government to operate under a quasi-idealistic form of checks and balances. As outlined by the U.S. Constitution, the judicial branch of government serves as the interpreter of the law and is “one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in the world.”1 This complexity is a product of balance ...
Moreover, the bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City, while it had occurred after the passage of the Gun-Free School Zone Act, created a political environment where the Clinton administration and the Republican congressional leaders believed that the federal government had to combat domestic terrorist groups and the weapons that they used. The case drew considerable attention from diverse interest groups. The National Education Association, for example, joined with the Clinton administration and various anti gun groups to argue that schools had experienced difficulty in handling gun related crimes. Solicitor General Drew S.
Days argued that the law was different from other statutes dealing with firearms in that it targeted possession rather than sale. Yet Days also insisted that a close connection existed between violence in schools and the movement of guns in interstate commerce. The government insisted that guns were often used as part of the drug culture that was itself carried on through national commerce. The government also argued that in this instance Congress was merely trying to supplement state law rather than trying to supplant it, thus it did not have to demonstrate as strong a link between the movement of guns in interstate commerce and the establishment of gun-free school zones as it might otherwise have had to do. A sharply divided Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Fifth Circuit and struck down the law. Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist’s majority opinion was one of the few times since the 1930’s when the justices held a congressional action unconstitutional on the ground that it violated states’ rights. Rehnquist held that the gun-free schools law far exceeded the bounds of the federal commerce power. Indeed, the chief justice found that given the theories advanced by the federal government in this case, “it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically had been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government’s arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.” To Rehnquist’s opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas added a strongly worded concurrence that offered a conservative history of the commerce power that purported to show that the court had permitted Congress to turn it into a “blank check.” The dissenters in the case insisted that Congress had historically had the power to do what it had done and that the buying, selling and possessing of guns were deeply implicated in commercial activity. Justice Stephen Breyer argued in dissent that he could not understand why the majority would accept that Congress had the power to regulate the school environment by keeping it free from controlled substances, asbestos and alcohol but not guns.
Law School Essay Question Help
Please select from the following common MBA question topics: Why I Want to Be a Lawyer Why I am Qualified Why I am an Exceptional Person Issues-Based Essays General Application Questions Note: The below essays were not edited by EssayEdge Editors. They appear as they were initially reviewed by admissions officers. Theme 1: Why I Want to Be a Lawyer The secret to doing this theme well is to show ...
The dissenters also charged that the decision threatened to return the justices to the era of substantive due process of law and the substitution of the views of the Court for those elected officials. The Lopez decision underscored the significant changes brought by republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush on the Court. The decision was widely viewed at the time as a stalking horse by the court’s conservative justices to attack a wide range of federal social policies. Perhaps the most important, however, the decision affirmed the strong interest of the high court in supporting state sovereignty, a development that has become a hallmark of the Rehnquist court.
