Talk:United States v. Lopez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Meaning of the decision

Is this article seriously saying that the U.S. government cannot pass a law preventing children from carrying firearms into schools? To me as a non-U.S. citizen, this seems extremely bizarre... Is the idea that individual states are responsible for such laws? Was there no such law in Texas? Can schoolchildren in Texas legally do this? Evercat 18:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Court's decision here signified only that this law was beyond the power of the federal government. Individual states can and have enacted such statutes, and there are no constitutional bars to such legislation at the state level. I don't know whether Texas had such a law at the time this incident occurred, though I think it likely. SS451 02:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

From the Court's decision: "[Lopez] was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 46.03(a)(1) (Supp. 1994). The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged respondent by complaint [ UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 2] with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V)."

So, ironically, Lopez's state charges were dropped in deference to federal charges, only to have the federal charges invalidated. Whether Texas was able to resurrect the charges, I have not been able to determine. Mmccalpin 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commerce Clause power vs. lawmaking power

Changed the first sentence to "first modern case to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution" from "first modern case to set limits to Congress's lawmaking power." The former revision was inaccurate--prior to '95, the Court was very much in the habit of limiting Congress's lawmaking power, in cases where violations of constitutional rights were concerned; thus, for example, fell the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which impermissibly infringed on individual rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. What distinguishes Lopez is that the Court, for the first time since the so-called Constitutional Revolution of 1937, found that Congress's alleged justification of Commerce Clause authority for a given regulation was inadequate, as the activity regulated was not closely enough related to interstate commerce. This was the same basis on which the Court struck down some basic progressive economic regulations during the Lochner era, which is why the revival of this rationale has set off some alarm bells. Once "liberty of contract" makes another appearance, people should really start worrying. ;) SS451 02:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of the Lopez Decision

I think this article has too many uncited references and not enough substance on the effects that its precedent create in current policymaking. I made a small section on the effects of Lopez, but I do not know if my citations are formatted properly. Can somebody check them out and fix them if necessary? The762x51 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am really concerned about the first two sentences in The Impact of the Decision section. After reading the referenced document, it is pretty clear to me that it was Justice O'Connor's strong language in New York v. United States that is what is referenced in the first sentence. This sentence does not belong in this article. The second sentence is not clear to me. What "special significance"? I would look for a more definitive assertion.

Does anyone else share my concerns? Mmccalpin 19:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)