Lopez (1995).” The case is pertaining to a law banning fire arms in school zones, and while the verdict of this case may not be particularly relevant, the verdict gives a more concise interpretation of the commerce act, by breaking don 't the powers into three broad categories of activities that Congress can regulate. Of those three, categories number two and three and of particular relevance[Gilman, Graber, Whittington, 640-647]. “Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may only come from intrastate activities…. Finally, Congress’ commerce authority include the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce… i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.[Gilman, Graber, Whittington, 642]” The Case of “United States V. Lopez,” is directly referenced in another supreme court case, “Gonzales V. Raich (2005).” Gonzales V. Raich is a case that is directly related to the top of marijuana in the terms of interstate commerce, so it is extremely pertinent, and its outcome is also partially effected by the precedent set in a previously discussed case, “Wickard V. Filburn.” California licensed medical marijuana growers had their plants seized by the federal government agents, and the constitutionality of that. The supreme court ruled that because the amount being grown was not the issue, and that the marijuana being grown would still have an effect on the market, regardless of if that market was legal or not. Another issue that the Supreme Court used in the ruling was that it is hard to trace to origin of the marijuana to determine if it was sourced locally or not, which makes is a challenging to regulate[Gilman, Graber, Whittington, 647-652]. After understanding these 5 historic
Lopez (1995).” The case is pertaining to a law banning fire arms in school zones, and while the verdict of this case may not be particularly relevant, the verdict gives a more concise interpretation of the commerce act, by breaking don 't the powers into three broad categories of activities that Congress can regulate. Of those three, categories number two and three and of particular relevance[Gilman, Graber, Whittington, 640-647]. “Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may only come from intrastate activities…. Finally, Congress’ commerce authority include the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce… i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.[Gilman, Graber, Whittington, 642]” The Case of “United States V. Lopez,” is directly referenced in another supreme court case, “Gonzales V. Raich (2005).” Gonzales V. Raich is a case that is directly related to the top of marijuana in the terms of interstate commerce, so it is extremely pertinent, and its outcome is also partially effected by the precedent set in a previously discussed case, “Wickard V. Filburn.” California licensed medical marijuana growers had their plants seized by the federal government agents, and the constitutionality of that. The supreme court ruled that because the amount being grown was not the issue, and that the marijuana being grown would still have an effect on the market, regardless of if that market was legal or not. Another issue that the Supreme Court used in the ruling was that it is hard to trace to origin of the marijuana to determine if it was sourced locally or not, which makes is a challenging to regulate[Gilman, Graber, Whittington, 647-652]. After understanding these 5 historic