U.S. V Lopez Federalism Lopez

U.S. v Lopez Federalism

Federalism

Lopez v U.S. Federalism

The Constitution of the United States is a document which limits the power of the federal government by sharing that power with the individual states. The Constitution grants the federal government certain power over national interests while reserving the power to address domestic concerns to the states. While the federal government can perform such actions as levying taxes, issuing currency, declaring war, and other such things, "any action by the federal government must fall into one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution." ("Federalism") in 1990, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) which made it a federal crime to "knowingly possess a firearm at a place that he knew or had reasonable cause to believe was a school zone." ("United States v. Lopez: A Case Brief Summary") While such laws were traditionally the domain of individual states, Congress believed it had the power to legislate under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. When the case of United States v. Lopez reached the Supreme Court, the federal government argued that the presence of a gun in a school interfered with the general economy of the entire nation. But Lopez's attorneys argued that Congress did not have the authority to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act under the Commerce Clause, and had exceeded it's power. When the Supreme Court decided for Lopez, and struck down the law, many claimed it was a return to the traditional view of federalism, one which limited the power of the federal government.

On March 10th, 1992 a high school student named Alfonso Lopez brought a gun to school. When this was discovered he was arrested by local authorities, but "the next day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged respondent by complaint with violating the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990." ("United States v. Lopez") When the trial court found him guilty, Lopez appealed the verdict on the basis that Congress did not have the authority under the Commerce Clause to make such a law. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Lopez but then the government appealed to the Supreme Court. The issues that the court needed to address were whether or not Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to pass a law like the GFSZA, and exactly what types of activity could Congress regulate under its power granted in the Commerce Clause.

Ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States decided in favor of Lopez and struck down the GFSZA as outside the power of Congress granted under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The court found, in a 5-4 decision, that Congress only had the power to legislate under three categories: the use of interstate channels, the protection of the instrumentalities, persons, or things involved in interstate commerce, and those activities which have substantial effects on interstate commerce. In this particular case the court found that the GFSZA contained "no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through a case by case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce." ("United States v. Lopez") in effect, the court said that the federal government can only pass laws involving activities that substantially affects interstate commerce and the possession of a gun in a school did not rise to that level.

In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy, stated that "it was the insight of the Framers that freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one." ("United States v. Lopez") He argued that power divided between two separate institutions would control each other while simultaneously controlling themselves. This, it was thought, would lesson the chance that one institution would become tyrannical because the concept of "federalism," "secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." ("United States v. Lopez") Lopez used this argument in his challenge and claimed that Congress lacked the power under the system of federalism to enact such a law. This claim that was backed up by the Supreme Court's decision which held that Congress had not presented findings that guns in schools affected interstate commerce and had then exceeded its legislative power in enacting the law.