Cat Motogawa

Cat Motogawa

July 7th, 2019

AP Government

Summer Assignment

Cat

In context, the case of US v. Lopez (514 US 549 (1995)), it all started on March 10, 1992, when Alfonzo Lopez walked into Edison High School, where he resided as a student, with the intent to sell a handgun in his possession. Officers at his school received an anonymous tip that Lopez had a weapon on school grounds, and they confronted him. Lopez admitted that he had a weapon and was arrested, and charged. The next day the charges were dropped and changed to a violation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Which turned his actions into a federal offense. Lopez denied the charge stating that “unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools.” The court denied his motion stating that “ ‘a constitutional exercise of Congress’ a well-defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the 'business' of elementary, middle and high schools...affects interstate commerce,'' Lopez was then tried and convicted of violating Section 922(q) in Texas and (the original conviction occurred at the United States Court for the Western District of Texas).

He appealed this proceeding, stating that schools remained under state jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction, so Congress did not have the right to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. After many appeals of his conviction, the Supreme Court finally heard his case. 

When the disposition occurred Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that possession of a gun within a school is no economic activity, that will affect interstate commerce. Including that Lopez having a gun on school grounds has no ties to interstate commerce. Concluding that having a gun in school is not interstate commerce. Although it is a crime, it should be held at a local and state level, not federal. Concluding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 violated the Constitution because it infringed upon state powers.

Guns on school properties is still an issue today, we have seen an increasing number of mass shootings using guns and rifles on school grounds, and though the decision was of good intent so that states may regulate guns in a way, we have come to a point in time where the government needs to step in and regulate gun control before more people die.

In the case of Engel v. Vitale (370 US 421 (1962)) it all started with Mr. Engel, a man in New York, showing displeasure with the law in his state that affected his child's school. In a way, forcing the children to recite Regents’ poem, which sounded like a prayer at the end of the day. Which lead to not only his displeasure but many other parents alike. Causing him to sue Mr.Vitale the schools principal. Many argued that it was constitutional due to the fact it was voluntary and promoted the free exercise of religion, including it was a way to encourage students to read Regents’ poem. 

Before being heard by the supreme court a group of organizations joined forces in challenging the poem that was stated at the beginning of school, complaining that it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. But the New York Court of Appeals rejected their arguments.

When the case reached the Supreme Court they ended up in a 6 1 ruling that you cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is voluntary, including when the prayer is not directly tied to a particular religion. The majority opinion, delivered by Hugo Black, stated that the respondents' usage of the school system to facilitate Regents’ poem violated the first amendment. The court also ruled that the constitution prohibits any laws establishing a religion. Meaning the government had no business to draft any in-formal prayer for any segment of the population to repeat or government-sponsored religious programs.

It's extremely important to understand the boundaries of religion and their limits. A public school full of children of all backgrounds is no place to recite a godly like poem, even when voluntary. Kids don't understand the difference and follow like sheep, if their neighbor or friend is doing it they'll do it too, without comprehension or explanation. 

The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (558 US_ (2010)), the Citizens United sought a court order against the Federal Election Commission to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act also known as BCRF to its film Hillary the movie. The movie expressed opinions about whether or not Hillary Clinton would make a good president. The BCRF was created in an attempt to regulate big-money campaign contributions it restricts what can be said for election campaigns. One of its preventers is how the BCRF prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such campaigns. It also requires the disclosure of donors to the campaign, and a disclaimer when the advertisement is not authorized by the candidate intends to support. Citizens United argued that section 203 violates the First Amendment plain and simple but also applied to the movies release advertisement attempts. Sections 201 and 203 are also said to be unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances of the case. The United States District Court denied the injunction and ruled that it was not unconstitutional, due to the decision from another case, McConnell v. FEC, which they had already reached that determination. The District Court also stated that the movie was a functional equipment choice to express advocacy for Hillary Clinton. It tempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, showing that section 203 was also not unconstitutional. Lastly, he brought up that sections 201 and 203 are not unconstitutional as it is applied to the movie were advertisements for a candidate.

The decision for was overturned, showing how under the First Amendment, political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity. Besides this, the majority also held that the BCRF, will use disclosure requirements, and they will be applied to the movies or constitutional reasoning that the disclosure is justified by. the governmental interest in providing the electric with information about the election-related spending resources. Space return rets The majority also held that the BCRF Ares disclosure requirements as applied to the movies or constitutional reasoning that the disclosure is justified by the governmental interest in providing the electric with information about the election-related spending resources. They also stated that political speech is indispensable to a smart democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.

"United States v. Lopez." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
"Engel v. Vitale." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.