New Deal Case Summary

In 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School was victim of a terrible mass shooting that prompted several states and cities to pass strict gun control measures. This sparked a widely debated and controversial issue for “gun friendly” states in the South and West, who responded with bills that would strengthen Stand Your Ground laws and allow weapons in most public places. The nation continues to be divided on gun control policies, as it is very controversial and continues to be a very hot topic in society today. There has been a rise in gun violence throughout the years, and it has been widely been debated that guns are too easily accessible and there is a continued push for stricter gun laws that can reduce the risk of gun violence.

However, Lopez’s trouble did not stop here. Soon after, the Federal government petitioned for the Supreme Court to review the case, and they accepted. Attorneys for the United States contended that the law was an appropriate use of power under the interstate Commerce Clause. The government was obligated to show that Section 922 was a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, and that this section regulated a matter that affected interstate commerce. The government’s case was made up from one principle argument. They argued that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to violent crimes, which, in turn, would affect the general economic condition in one of two ways: First, because violent crime causes damagers and creates expenses, it would raise insurance costs. These insurance costs would be spread

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

In this case, Dick Heller, a police officer, authorized to carry a handgun while on duty wanted a handgun to own and keep at his home. The District of Columbia refused so Dick Heller filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia, which eventually also went to the Supreme Court. In June 2008, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined the provisions of the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. They stated that “handguns or arms for the purpose of self-defense do not have to be trigger locked”.

Prior to this case there were two forms of gun control acts the first was that of 1968 which forbids gun sells to sell guns to people that have a felony charge that are mentally unstable and other things this was amended with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which included the need to have a background check. While working to make a system that could make the check fast it had to be done by state law enforcement. People however started to claim that this act was unconstitutional and it violated their rights given to them under the Constitution. The Petitioners filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s interim provisions and in each case the District

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which states that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

Heller, the court ruled that “the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms…including, ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’” (National Rifle Association, 2011 par 4). Although the Constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms, it does not exclude “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,” (Romano & Wingert, 2011 par 13). In recent years here has been much discussion among the nation’s lawmakers and their constituents as to whether or not the Second Amendment is still constitutional; the question is whether or not the Second Amendment should be revised, to prohibit the sale of firearms to those who do not meet certain conditions and qualifications, or even removed from the constitution. According to a national survey of 1,005 high school students, conducted by Vittes, Sorrenson and Gilbert, “63.7 percent of high school students believe that regulating the sale of guns does not violate the constitution” (2003, pg 12). In the same survey, 64.6 percent responded that they would support stricter laws addressing the sale of firearms, and 82.2 percent of those surveyed, believe that the government should make and enforce laws making it more difficult for

In order for the respondent, which was a local student at his school; to get his case dismissed he would have to prove that either he recently moved with interstate commerce or that he had some sort of tie to interstate commerce. In order for the court to uphold the respondents claim that 922(q) is justified because the possession of the firearm in a local school zone does indeed substantially influence interstate commerce, they would have to have the Supreme Court pile conjecture upon conjecture in an approach that would suggest reasonable to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police authority of the nature possessed only by the States.

“I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people,” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said after winning his party’s nomination in 1932 ("A New Deal for Americans"). The 1930s was a time of great economic depression; in response the New Deal was FDR’s plan for America’s recovery. By 1933, when FDR took office, one in four Americans was unemployed. Furthermore, there was widespread hunger, malnutrition, overcrowding, and poor health. The New Deal was made to combat these tragic conditions and it did so through the means of welfare and government intervention. Indeed, the New Deal was a radical change to the way America had

This astonishing expansion of licensing (beginning in 1987) has been accompanied by a dramatic decline in national murder rates. Although nothing specifically correlates these two actions, it is believed that the relationship between them is significant. This has become one of the largest argumentative points for the expansion of concealed carry legislation. While multiple states already allow, by legislation; teachers, faculty, hired security or other specific persons the ability to carry concealed on school grounds, they all require some specific

In a very close decision, 5 to 4, the court ruled in favor of Lopez. They decided that the Gun- Free School Zones Act of 19190 did not fall under “interstate commerce” therefore it was unconstitutional. The court ruled that they could regulate three things, ‘instrumentalities of commerce’, the use or channels of commerce, and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce’. The court decided that the act did not fall under those categories and does not have ‘substantially affect on interstate commerce”. Congress did not present any evidence that this act affected interstate commerce; only theories that it was linked to violence in schools and the national economy. Although having the possession of a gun is not an economic activity

On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people should be able to defend themselves. Banning handguns in the nation’s capital was a ruling decided by President Bush. The major question was, is this going again the Second Amendment of the citizens? The justices decided against the ban with a 5-4 vote. Although many were upset with this decision, one stated, “I’m very happy that I am not able to defend myself and my household in my own home.” The court declared that it was still illegal to carry handguns outside and all pistols must be registered with the police. In January, Bush signed the first major gun control legislation in 14 years, stating that there should be stricter background

Black political sentiment started to shift toward the democratic party with the Presidential campaign of New York Governor Al Smith for the 1928 election. Al Smith captured 17 percent of the black precincts of Philadelphia, 27 percent of the Black precincts of Cleveland and Chicago, and 28 percent of Harlem. These statistics showed a shift in support to the Democratic party previously unseen in American History. Full black voter shift did not occur with Al Smith’s Democratic Party. Al Smith wanted black support but did not risk white support to get it. Al Smiths unwillingness to fully commit deterred black voters from fully withdrawing from the Republican Party.

Soon after World War I, the United States entered a period of economic boom, the Roaring Twenties. During this time, new inventions transformed the traditional American lifestyles into something that has never been seen before and scientific breakthroughs transformed the traditional view of the universe. To keep up with the rapidly transforming America, many felt the need to buy all the latest products. Buying on credit became common as banks lowered their interests, and “Buy now, pay later” became the credo of many middle-class Americans. What they didn’t expect was the eventual consequences of their actions.

I do agree that New Deal Era is the most relevant to the case study and also it is the era most similar to the one we are in currently. However, proper behavior (Jacksonian Era) is also an essential role in our rule making today. We are required to follow the rules, and act accordantly based on these rules. In reference to the case before 9/11, Bush advocated on the way one should act in order to maintain relations. He said: “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us.”