United States V Lopez

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.

The civil legal system is one in which plaintiff feels that they have been wronged in someway and seek compensation and not punishment through a civil suit. This usually happens in the form of property or monetary damages. In these cases civil law governs relationship between and among people, business, organizations, and governmental entities. For example the case of Rodriguez v. Firestone (2001) civil law contained the rules for the manufacturing and sales of consumer goods with hidden hazards for the user.

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

In the Supreme Court case, Elonis v. United States, Anthony Elonis, the petitioner, claimed that his First Amendment rights were being denied. Elonis used Facebook as a platform for venting comments about people who he felt had done him wrong. Elonis’ words, however, were interpreted to be threats. As an American citizen, Anthony Elonis is protected by the First Amendment as he claims. Having freedom of speech, however, does not mean that a person can say anything they want, whenever they want. Examining the First Amendment, quoting from the Brief for the United States and the Brief for the Petitioner will prove that Elonis did violate federal law.

In 1974, Dwight Lopez and eight students were suspended for 10 days on behalf of destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment at Central High School in Columbus, Ohio. Lopez testified he was a bystander and he was innocent. In addition, Lopez testified approximately 75 other students were suspended as well. Lopez claimed his suspension without a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. During this action, the principals did not perform hearings for none of the affected students before ordering the suspensions. Due to the students not given a hearing, the principals’ actions were challenged and a class-action suit was filed asking for declaratory and injunctive

Guns are becoming one of the top issues in the newspapers (The Monroe Evening News). There have been 394 incidents of students bringing guns to school in the United States since 1998 (Sutton). Legislators say that the law cannot prevent the tragedy of the fatal shootings in the schools

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

On October 12, 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man he later identified as Walter Fernandez. Mr. Fernandez pulled out a knife and pointed it at Lopez’ chest. Lopez then ran from the scene and called 911 for help, but petitioner whistled, and four other men came from a nearby apartment building and

The strongest challenge to the constitutionality of the statute is found in the United States Supreme Court case United States v. Lopez. The Court in Lopez found an anti-gun law in school zones unconstitutional because guns in school zones do not substantially affect interstate commerce. In Lopez, the Court delineated three categories able to be regulated by Congress under the Commerce clause of the Constitution. The three categories in which Congress may regulate commerce are: (1) “the use of the channels of interstate commerce,” (2) “the instrumentalities of

The case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) was the case of a young man in 12th grade named Alfonso Lopez Jr. who brought a loaded gun to school and was arrested and charged under Texas law. The state charges were later dismissed and federal agents charged him because he violated the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. This acts states that it is unlawful for people to bring firearms to a place that "the individual knows, or has a reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." He was charged by federal agents because he violated a federal criminal law, however this was also dismissed because it was unconstitutional. This was the big issue surrounding this case. The act was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court said congress went above its constitutional

In light of many recent mass shootings, like the shooting in San Bernardino, the topic of gun control and gun violence have been highly debated in the United States. Many state and local government have taken the responsibility into their own hands, placing bans on certain types of guns deemed most dangerous. This has sparked controversy in the U.S. because of the fact that the right to ?bear arms? is a 2nd Amendment right found in the constitution. The Supreme Court has only heard one case involving individual gun rights, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which they ruled that the state and local government could not take away the individual right to own a gun. Despite the contradicting laws barring guns in certain locations and allowing guns in

Does the Supreme Court have the right to use the Commerce Clause, under Article I Section VIII, when dealing with the constitutional right of interstate commerce?

Gun control is a very controversial topic. There is a large amount of supporters on each side of the argument. One side claims that gun control will stop events such as school shootings. The other side claims that it is a right that cannot be taken away from the constitution. Both sides have supporters that are very involved and emotional about their views. With both sides being heavily argued, it makes gun control one of the most debated topics in courts today.

The final argument Alexander makes is called “Poor Excuse,” which that police use minor traffic violations to conduct what is called a “consent search” or a “safety search”. A consent search is when an officer "asked" for consent to search someone’s vehicle. Many people do not refused, but some do refuse, and that is when some officers will bring drug-sniffing dogs around someone’s vehicle and tell the dog in German to bark, which allows the officers to search the vehicle for suspicion of drugs. The Supreme Court has ruled in Rodriguez v.United States that walking a drug-sniffing dog around someone's vehicle (or someone's luggage) does not constitute a "search," and therefore does not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny. In addition to a “consent

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