Supreme Court Case: US Vs. Lopez

While, reading the case, Elonis v. United States, I was astonished to see that someone would post something so explicit, offensive, and inhumane. Basically, the case of Elonis v. United States is about a man named Anthony Elonis who is an upcoming rapper and used his stage name, Tone Dougie. His Facebook page consisted of him posting disturbing rap lyrics. Even though Elonis was going through a divorce with his former wife, which did not stop him from writing and posting crude lyrics. Eventually, it got to the point where his wife felt that she was being targeted by his lyrics. According to an article on, New York Times, Elonis wrote that he wanted to see a Halloween costume that included his wife’s “head” on a stick. Obviously, she felt threatened and reported the assaults to the police. Anthony Elonis was convicted for posting threats that targeted his wife, his coworkers, police officers, a kindergarten class, and even an FBI agent. Although Elonis argued that his posting are not considered to be a “true threat” and that he is protected under the First Amendment. I believe he wanted to cause fear towards his wife, Tara and therefore, is his lyrics are a true threat. Basically, a true threat is defined as something a person would consider to be “purposely” harmful and cause pain. Elonis mentioned that his post were not offended nor were the threatening anybody. He stated that he did not have the intent of trying to harm anyone, he was just trying

In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public

United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

Over the years, the United States has made advancements towards a society in which gender no longer acts as a deciding factor in regards to societal and legal rights. The stance of women today differs greatly from the position they held 250 or even 50 years ago. Even though women have advanced via law reforms and changing social perspective, they still remain unrepresented and uninvolved in the law, which leads to a lack of overall equality in our legal system and society.

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

In the case of Kyllo v. United States, I believe that the federal government did not exceed boundaries set by the Fourth Amendment. Conducting basic surveillance of the home with a basic thermal imager, Kyllo’s illegal activities were inferred using common patterns associated with indoor marijuana growth, and this information was used to obtain a search warrant. Although agents used extrasensory technology to view the normally invisible heat radiating from the home, their actions did not infringe upon Kyllo’s rights. All of the information used in obtaining the search warrant was gained from the exterior of the house, not through an unconstitutional search. However unorthodox the methods may have been, they did not constitute a violation.

Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) where Congress made it unlawful to have a gun in a school zone under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In March of 1992, high school senior Alphonso Lopez Jr. was arrested with an unloaded concealed firearm and bullets while school property and violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Lopez was convicted and he appealed the courts decision all the way to the Supreme Court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause and had no authority to pass this law affecting public schools.

In the case of Kennedy V. Louisiana Patrick Kennedy was found guilty in raping and sodomizing his eight-year-old stepdaughter in a Louisiana courtroom. Mr. Kennedy refused to plead guilty and stated the crime was committed by two young boys from the neighborhood. He was convicted sentenced to death 2003. On March 2nd 1988 the victim sustained severe injuries; the injuries required emergency surgery because the rape was so brutal. Louisiana law authorized capital punishment for the rape of a child twelve years and younger. Mr. Patrick Kennedy challenged his sentence under the eighteen amendments as cruel and unusual punishment. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined the challenged that the death penalty was not too harsh for such a wicked crime. In a Supreme Court decision Coker v. Georgia 1977 the United States Supreme Court concluded that capital punishment for rape of an adult women was not applicable if the victim is a child and if it did not result or contemplated in result of a death. The court discussed a number of Supreme Court case related to child vulnerability and the death penalty. In the case of Roper V. Simmons the court ruled that the death penalty could not be applied to a person if the crime was committed when they were under the age of eighteen. In another case, Atkins V. Virginia the death penalty could not be placed on a mentally ill person. The petitioner Kennedy argued that in all these cases they do not establish conformity.

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.

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

Lopez, the justices had to decide if the Gun-Free School Zones Act has an effect on interstate trade and, according to congress, intrastate commerce too. The US Government’s stand was that the absence of gun violence in schools would indirectly lead to economic growth because a greater education results in a better economy. However, it could be argued that poor economy leads to less money proportioned to schools, slowing education which results to increase in crime and gun violence. The decision of this case upholds that firearms possession does not influence education and the national economy and also still limits Congress from police powers thru the Commerce

Likewise, mere possession of a vehicle cannot support an inference of knowledge regarding the presence of contraband, and it certainly cannot support the specific intent as to a conspiracy or otherwise for aiding and abetting. Indeed, “[i]t is axiomatic that more is required than mere knowledge of the purpose of a conspiracy. See, e.g., Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703, 711-13 (1943); United States v. Ceballos, 340 F.3d 115, 124 (2d Cir. 2003). What is more, such knowledge by itself, would not even establish aiding and abetting liability, which requires proof of the intent to contribute to the success of the underlying crime, see United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2006), let alone conspiracy. See

I visited Monroe County Court on March 30th, 2016. The court case was called, “Williams vs United States”, and Williams was being sued for possession of an unregistered handgun on September 18th, 2015. The court procedure started at about 2:45 P.M. when Judge Randall entered the courtroom. Upon entering the courtroom everyone present arose. After rising Judge Randall asked everyone in the courtroom to sit down, and the judge briefly overviewed the nature of the case.

The case of United States v. Lopez begins with Congress passing the Guns-Free School Zone Act under the Commerce Clause. Alfonso Lopez

Background of the case? : Governments and citizens included, laws being referred to, dates, earlier court choices?- The foundation of the case was the initially United States Supreme Court case following the New Deal. Dates were Nov. 8th, 1994 - Apr. 24th, 1995. Individuals included for the situation was Chief Justice Mr. William Rehnquist and other Associate Justices. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 made it to where any individual intentionally to have a gun at a place that he knew or had sensible reason to accept was a school zone would be unlawful. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelth grade understudy, conveyed a hid and handgun that was stacked and brought it into his secondary school and was captured and accused under Texas law of gun ownership