Quote:
|
U.S. v. Lopez (invalidating gun-free school zones) did mark a check on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, but so far that is just a tiny chink in the armor (and does not undercut the rationale of Wickard v. Filburn).
|
I see this mistake frequently, and now and then try to correct it.
US v Lopez did NOT invalidate gun-free school zones.
Read the
opinion. Pay particular attention to footnote 4.
What happened was, the Congress and President could see how things were going in the Lopez case, and could see that they were likely to lose. They were going to lose because the law, as written at the time, forced the Court to ASSUME that certain intrastate activities affect interstate commerce. Courts don't like to ASSUME stuff, and if you read the opinion you can see that the law AS WRITTEN AT THE TIME was overturned on this basis.
HOWEVER, while all that was going on at the Supreme Court, Congress got busy and passed, and President Clinton signed, a
NEW, IMPROVED gun free school zones act, this time with specific findings by Congress that say having a gun near a school affects interstate commerce.
Rhenquist, in the majority opinion, thus had to add footnote 4, saying that they were overturning a PREVIOUS VERSION of the law. The CURRENT VERSION remained untouched, and you can read it here:
18 U.S.C. ยง 922 (q).
This is what the
minority in the Raich case were referencing in saying:
Quote:
|
If the Court is right, then Lopez stands for nothing more than a drafting guide
|
Congress can create its own power simply by pointing to something and saying it affects interstate commerce.