On analysis of the case it based on the Supreme Court scrutinizing congressional legislation in determining whether it is passed constitutional muster with resulting controversies involving the commerce clause of the United States constitution which played a role in identifying congress commerce scope. The main starting point for the commerce clause jurisprudence is the United States constitution which stated that the congress had power and authority to regulate commerce in1824. In 1988, the interstate regulatory moved to congress for a more perfect union. The first case for the Supreme Court to deal with was the Gibbons versus Ogden in which Chief Justice Marshall held congressional authority over commerce and outline its power. He ensured
…show more content…
In light with the constitution, the Supreme Court identified the regulation powers of the congress; the constitution allows the congress to exercise commerce power by regulating commerce in foreign nations and several states and Indian tribes. Chief Justice Marshall defined the nature of commerce power as stated in Gibbons versus Ogden in 1824 defining commerce as an intercourse. It is stated that the congress had power to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and also had power to regulate activities that substantially relate to and affected interstate …show more content…
The possession of the gun increases the insurance rates which is an interference of economic activity hence based on this the government argued it to be part of the congress power on commerce clause over Lopez case hence wanted the case to be upheld and practiced. The Supreme Court agreed that the congress had broad power to regulate the commerce clause but its power is limited and did not apply to Lopez possession of the gun in school. The Supreme Court argued that the government opinions stated were attenuated. The act did not have a clear link to commercial activity nor did jurisdictional nexus to interstate commerce hence affirm the fifth circuit’s decision regarding it being unconstitutionally. Finally the court ruled out some area of law making it beyond the reach of congressional power and hence worked in favor of Alfonzo Lopez on April 26th of 1995. The one who gave majority opinion to the case in the Supreme Court was the Chief Justice
In light with the constitution, the Supreme Court identified the regulation powers of the congress; the constitution allows the congress to exercise commerce power by regulating commerce in foreign nations and several states and Indian tribes. Chief Justice Marshall defined the nature of commerce power as stated in Gibbons versus Ogden in 1824 defining commerce as an intercourse. It is stated that the congress had power to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and also had power to regulate activities that substantially relate to and affected interstate …show more content…
The possession of the gun increases the insurance rates which is an interference of economic activity hence based on this the government argued it to be part of the congress power on commerce clause over Lopez case hence wanted the case to be upheld and practiced. The Supreme Court agreed that the congress had broad power to regulate the commerce clause but its power is limited and did not apply to Lopez possession of the gun in school. The Supreme Court argued that the government opinions stated were attenuated. The act did not have a clear link to commercial activity nor did jurisdictional nexus to interstate commerce hence affirm the fifth circuit’s decision regarding it being unconstitutionally. Finally the court ruled out some area of law making it beyond the reach of congressional power and hence worked in favor of Alfonzo Lopez on April 26th of 1995. The one who gave majority opinion to the case in the Supreme Court was the Chief Justice