Explanation:
1. In the Supreme Court Case: (the United States v. Lopez (1995) the plaintiff was Alfonso Lopez, and the defendant was the federal government (the United States).
2. The case brought to court because Mr. Lopez was found guilty and sentenced by a Texas court because he brought a firearm into school premises, which violated the Gun-Free Zone Act of 1990, a federal offense.
3. The goal of the defendants was to argue that the federal government overstepped its authority by applying the Gun-Free Schools Act law to the state and that the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act was a criminal law that was not under the Commerce Clause of the constitution. In other words, he was convicted using federal law even though schools were supposed to be controlled by their state laws; thus, they wanted the sentencing overturned.
4. The bill of rights amendment 2 and amendment 10 were involved in the case. In other words, "the Right to Bear Arms" and the power of the state not granted to the federal government was involved.
5. The case centers on civil rights, considering the fact it involved seeking a fair trial; as the accused felt the law used to charge him was unlawfully used.
6. Chief Justice William Rehnquist who supported the majority decision said, “The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity...and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. "
In other words, the Commerce clause did not apply here, as Lopez's possession of a gun had nothing to do with commerce so as to warrant the federal government's involvement in the case.
7. The decision was a 5-4 decision by the justices. It seems some justices still felt that the Act did not violate the Constitution. The 4 who voted against were of the opinion that the federal government (Congress) still has the authority under the constitution to apply the Act to states.
8. The case has been a precedent to show that it is unlawful for the federal government to overstep its authority when the constitution doesn't allow that. <em>The impact of the case has reechoed the importance of the separation of powers in American society.</em>
<em />
