🚀 go-pugleaf

Ray Ubinger <rcu@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>Some time in the last year or two, President Sworn-to-uphold-the-Second-and-
>Tenth-Amendments-Both tried to get gun possession illegalized within 100 
>feet of school zones (enforceable by the Bureau of Sworn-to-Violate-Alcohol-
>Toboacco-and-Firearms-Rights).

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, passed by congress.

>The Supreme Can't-Help-Doing-Something-
>Right-Once-in-a-While struck down the move as unconstitutional,
>with Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the majority opinion, citing the 
>Tenth.

The 10th Amendment was mentioned only obliquely; the argument turned on 
the Commerce Clause.

>President Who-Asked-You-in-the-First-Place vowed to get the measure
>implemented anyway.  The case went by the name of _Lopez_.  I don't know its 
>current status.

The decision was announced in April 1995.

>What a second lawyer remarked, when I told him what the first lawyer 
>said above, is that it's a wonder the action didn't get justified by 
>the interstate commerce clause, the way the whole Civil Rights Act of
>'64 was, for example.

The government used this argument, and it was rejected.

The dissenting opinions worry me.  The basic argument was this:
1)  Education affects commerce.
2)  Guns in the school affect education.
3)  Therefore, congress can regulate guns in the school.

Also, the dissenters noted that the court (for 60 years) has been very 
deferential to congress as to what "affects commerce."  So, the 
dissenters believe in
1)  X affects commerce.
2)  Y affects X.
3)  Therefore, congress can regulate Y.

and the court shouldn't be too picky about X.
With this reasoning, congress can make any law they want!

Scot Billman