ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ก.ย. 2017
- A video case brief of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Read the full-text brief here: www.quimbee.com/cases/united-...
In 1990, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), making it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm in a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." Lopez (defendant), a student who brought a gun to his high school, was confronted by school authorities, arrested, and charged with violating the GFSZA. Lopez was tried and convicted. In his appeal, he brought suit against the United States government (plaintiff), challenging the constitutionality of the GFSZA as a regulation based on Congress’s Commerce Clause power. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with Lopez and reversed his conviction. The United States petitioned for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which granted the petition.
Wait so Lopez got away with bringing a gun to school because the law that said he couldn't didn't say anything about commerce? I'm so confused.
Not quite. Lopez still got in trouble with state (Texas) law.
The federal charges were dropped. The key to this case is that it restricts the federal government's use of the commerce clause since they were using it for many things not related to commerce.
@@rafaelgradilla5102 ……not related to interstate commerce.
Also, issues that affect commerce specifically within a state’s own borders are reserved for regulation under that state.
That nigga Lopez changed history by bringing his strap to school lmao
Thank you Quimbee!!
this was such a confusing video
What does commerce have anything to do with owning a gun?
I'm confused.
Guns are produced, sold, and bought, ergo they are part of commerce. They are often produced in one state and bought and sold in the other, which means they are part of interstate commerce. The question that is relevant to this issue is whether or not regulating where someone can carry a gun is part of interstate commerce, which would mean that Congress could regulate them through their Article 1 §8 powers from the Constitution.
so what about regulating where you can and cannot carry an apple considering it's part of u.s. commerce?
The Great Danku Tree, we do regulate that. Ever had a produce stop when crossing state borders, or when coming into the US? Parasites and pest. It can be regulated. Read Maine v Taylor.
That seems like an insanely slippery slope
The Great Danku Tree Welcome to Constitutional Law. Commerce Clause cases have definitely been controversial, but they're not nearly as slippery as the likes of Buck v Bell or Skinner v OK.
My social studies teacher is this guy's cousin...
I love these videos!
thank
I would argue that interstate commerce is reduced if not as many children have the opprotunity to grow up to participate in it due to dying in school shootings.
While the horror of it cannot be understated, statistically school shootings are thankfully exceedingly rare: the chance of dying in a school shooting is 1: 10,000,000. Someone is 600x times more likely to be struck by lightning than be shot in a school. We need to consider that literally EVERYTHING is related to commerce in some way. That is why the Court created the test to see if something is SUBSTANTIALLY related. Otherwise, the Commerce Clause can be used as an indefinite catch-all to regulate everything. You may think that this instance is a sensible regulation in a vacuum, but we need to be honest, is this really a commerce issue? Almost everyone would agree that it is a safety matter, not an economic one.
Do one on Fisher v. Texas
You are aware that Bench Trials are unconstitutional, right?!?!?!?
someone explain this in a shorter, more understandable way please - cody
Andrea Roscoe Honestly, this was explained very well.
Hoffnungshäftling thanks, that actually helped
Near school? I thought he brought it into the school. Why are there people like Lopez who use their smartass in somewhere like this rather than being a good student and not bring ANY firearms to school? God save America!
K, why does congress need the commerce clause to prevent guns in school? Should common sense suggest that would be reasonable?
How do you enforce "common sense" as law?
Some old school Kennedy lovers wanted to use this case to go after Bill Clinton's leadership skills. However, the bumper stock ban overturning just gave Ted Kennedy BFF Joe Biden his own Lopez moment.
Breyer was totally right.
Not really. Obviously one can argue that guns shouldn't be anywhere near schools, but that has to be up to the states. There is no clear cut connection between bringing a gun and commerce. It is obviously critical when thinking just of a gun, but think of any other item brought to a school and congress suddenly stating that it has to disallow it, because it is questionably related to commerce? Rehnquist is totally right in calling that a general policing power.
@@PhilCrafting you completely ignored all the data showing the economic impact of gun violence, which was a major part of this case.
@@anthonysclafani3963 Gun violence happens everywhere in the US. Although schools have had problems with this issue in the past, one can hardly compare a school‘s role vs that of any other place where gun violence takes place.
@@anthonysclafani3963 So if I understand you correctly, violent crime affects interstate commerce, so this law was constitutional because congress has the right to pass any laws it deems necessary to deter and combat violent crime, therefore congress has the right to apply the death penalty even if some states have abolished it and states have always been sovereign in matters of criminal law and this power has never been delegated to the federal government and all this in the name of the Commerce clause.
@@teoanselmi581 that's ridiculous and not at all what I've said. Gun violence has been proven to affect interstate commerce, so Congress should be able to pass gun violence bills because of its Article 1 power under the commerce clause. I never mentioned the death penalty, but since you brought it up, the death penalty has been shown to be both incredibly expensive and generally ineffective in reducing crime. I don't support the death penalty, so that's kind of a random and unsubstantiated strawman.
the Bronx? Mad racist...