United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr. 514 US 549 (1995) is the first US Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set a limit to Congress' powers under the United States Constitutional Trade Clause. The Supreme Court declared that the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibits the possession of pistols near schools, is unconstitutional because it has no major impact on interstate commerce. After the Lopez decision, the action was specifically changed to apply only to weapons that have been transferred through interstate commerce.
Video United States v. Lopez
​​â € <â €
Alfonso Lopez, Jr., is a 12th grader at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992, he carried a.38 caliber handgun, along with five bullets, to school. The gun was not loaded; Lopez claims that he will give the weapon to someone else, a service that will receive $ 44. He is confronted by the authorities the schools have received anonymous tips that Lopez carries weapons - and claimed to have weapons. The next day, he was accused of violating the federal Arms-Free School Act of 1990 ("Act"), 18 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã, 922 (q).
Lopez moved to refuse the indictment on the grounds that Ã, §922 ​​â € <â € <(q) of the Act was "unconstitutional because it is outside the powers of Congress to govern the law on our public schools." The trial court rejected the motion, ruled that Ã, §922 ​​â € <â € <(q) was the "constitutional exercise of the Congress" of well-defined power to regulate activity in and affect trade, and 'business' primary, secondary and high... affecting trade between countries ".
Lopez was tried and convicted. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that Ã,§922 ​​â € <â € <(q) exceeds the power of Congress to enact legislation under the Trade Clause. The Fifth Circuit agrees and reverses its conviction, stating that "section 922 (q), in its full range of provisions, is invalid because it is outside the control of the Congress under the Trade Clause." The Court of Appeal noted that the history of the statute of the law does not justify it as the exercise of the power of the Trade Conglomerate, which suggests that a new version of the Law that more reads the links to interstate commerce may be designed, although what the nexus might be, it is difficult to align with the text decision, because the Court clearly states that the situation only caused a "trivial impact" on trade.
The United States Government petitioned for certiorari, in which the Court has the discretion to hear or reject a particular case, for a review of the Supreme Court and the Court accepting the case.
To defend the Act, the government is obliged to point out that §922 ​​(q) is a valid exercise of the Congress Trade Congress force, ie that the section governs issues that are "affected" (or "substantially affected" ) interstate commerce.
The main argument of the government is that the possession of firearms in the educational environment is likely to lead to violent crime, which in turn will affect general economic conditions in two ways. First, because violent crimes cause harm and create costs, it increases insurance costs, which are scattered throughout the economy; and secondly, by limiting the desire to travel in areas that are considered unsafe. The government also believes that the presence of firearms in schools will be considered dangerous, which causes students to fear and be disturbed; this, in turn, impedes learning; and this, in turn, will lead to a weaker national economy because education is clearly an essential element of the country's financial health.
The court, however, found this argument to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from subsequently regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its relationship to interstate commerce, social? What prevents Congress from regulating any activity that might affect one's economic productivity?
Maps United States v. Lopez
Supreme Court Decision
In decision 5-4, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. It was held that while Congress had wide law-making authority under the Trade Clause, the powers were limited, and did not extend the extent of the "trade" to legalize the rules of carrying pistols, especially when there was no evidence to bring them affected. economy on a large scale.
Justice Rehnquist, presenting the Court's opinion, identified three broad categories of activities that could be regulated by Congress under the Trade Clause:
- channel interstate commerce
- interstate commerce instruments or persons or objects in interstate commerce
- Activities that substantially affect or are substantially related to interstate commerce
He said that they quickly rejected any consideration of the first two categories and concluded that case resolution relies solely on consideration of the third category - the regulation of activities that substantially affects inter-country trade. The court essentially concluded that it did not carry a firearm as a commercial activity or even related to any economic enterprise, even under the most luxurious definition.
The opinion rejects the government's argument that because crime has a negative impact on education, Congress may have concluded that crime in schools substantially affected trade.
The court reasoned that if Congress could organize something very far from the trade, then he could arrange anything, and because the Constitution clearly creates Congress as the body with the mentioned power, this is impossible. Rehnquist concluded:
To enforce the opinion of the Government here, we shall stockpile inference on its conclusions in a manner that will make a fair offer to change the congressional authority under the Trade Clause to the general police force maintained by the United States. Admittedly, some of our previous cases have taken a long stride on that path, paying great tribute to congressional action. The broad language in this opinion has suggested possible additional extensions, but we refuse here to proceed further. To do so, we need to conclude that the enumeration of Constitutional authority does not presuppose something not mentioned, and that there can be no difference between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we do not want to do.
The Court specifically looked at four factors in determining whether the law was a legitimate attempt to use the power of the Trade Clause to regulate activities that substantially affected interstate commerce:
- Whether the activity is non-economic as opposed to economic activity; previous cases involving economic activity
- Jurisdiction element: whether the gun has moved in inter-country trade
- Are there any congressional findings of the economic relationship between weapons and education
- How attenuated the link is between regulated activity and interstate commerce
Although the verdict stops the tendency of inclusivity for a decade under the trade clause, it does not reverse the past decision on the meaning of the clause. Later, Rehnquist stated that the Court has a duty to prevent the legislative branch from seizing state power over the police behavior of their citizens. He acknowledged that the Supreme Court had upheld certain government measures to take power from the states, and quoted Lopez as a decision that eventually stepped in to examine government authority by clearly defining the state and federal powers.
Disagreements
Justice Breyer wrote a disagreeable opinion. He applied the three principles he considered basic:
- The Trade Clause includes the power to regulate local activities as long as they "significantly affect" inter-country trade.
- In considering the question, the court should consider not a regulated individual action (one example of gun ownership), but the cumulative effect of all similar actions (ie, the effect of all weapons held at or near the school).
- The court should specifically determine not whether the regulated activity significantly affects inter-state trade, but whether Congress can have a "rational basis" to conclude so.
With these principles, Justice Breyer asks whether Congress can rationally find that the adverse effects of violent crime in school zones, acting through the intermediate effect of degrading the quality of education, can significantly affect cross-border trade. Based on the empirical study, he answered this question firmly. He pointed out the growing importance of education in the labor market, noting that increasing global competition makes primary and secondary education more important. He also observes that US companies make location decisions, in part, on the presence or absence of an educated workforce.
Judge Breyer concluded that it is clear that gun violence could have an impact on inter-state trade. The only question remaining, then, whether Congress can rationally conclude that the effect could be "substantial". Congress can rationally conclude, in Judge Breyer's judgment, that the relation of armed violence to the disturbed learning environment, and of this disturbed environment < i> to adverse economic consequences, enough to create risks for "substantial" inter-state trade.
The Congress, in the view of Judge Breyer, has a rational basis "to find a significant relationship between weapons in or near schools and (through its influence on education) the interstate and foreign trade they are threatening". In his opinion, no more than this is necessary to find sufficient supporting force for the law that is opposed under the Trade Clause, and he consequently believes that the Court of Appeal has been mistaken and must be reversed.
In his disagreement, Judge Souter warned that the distinction between "commercial" and "non-commercial" activities is untenable. He echoes the "rational basis" theme of Breyer's distinction.
Judge Stevens, in his dissent, reiterated his agreement with Breyer's dissent that found many congressional powers under a trade clause to regulate gun ownership in schools, in the same way that Congress could act to protect the school environment from alcohol or asbestos. He also agrees with "the exposition of the radical character of the Souter Court and the familial with the decentralized pre-Depression version of the substantive process".
Impact of decision
Lopez raises serious questions about the extent to which the Court may be willing to exercise judicial security against federal encroachment on state sovereignty. This precedent has a special meaning in cases where the federal government tries to limit personal behavior. The commentator still postulates the effects that may occur in other established federal laws that apply in accordance with the Trade Force. Arguments can be made that this significant limitation of federal power is needed to build greater thresholds for government accountability and revitalize the role of countries in public policy making. This can also be attributed to a new law that makes carry open in legal schools in some jurisdictions of Texas. United States v. Lopez has been followed by the Supreme Court in limiting the powers of Congress under the Trade Clause in the case of 1999 the United States v. Morrison and under the other mentioned forces in the case of 2001 the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Armed Forces Engineer Corps ("SWANCC").
Revision and re-display following decision
Following Lopez's decision, Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 with the necessary "interstate-commerce" hooks used in other Federal Gun Laws. The revamped law of the Revised Federal Free School Zone is currently in effect and has been upheld by several United States Court of Appeals. None of the convictions that occurred under the revised law have been canceled as a result of the Lopez decision.
See also
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 514
- List of US Supreme Court cases
- List of US Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by Rehnuis Court
- Wickard v. Filburn , 317 US 111 (1942)
- A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp v. United States , 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
References
External links
- Subtitles United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995) is available from: Ã, Cornell Ã, CourtListener Findlaw Justia Ã, Oyez Ã, OpenJurist Ã, Google Scholar
- Brief Case for the United States v. Lopez at Lawnix.com
- "GUN BAN IS SHOT DOWN" Time Magazine
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments