Changes

The famous U.S. Supreme Court case of ''Wickard v. Filburn'' (1942) extended the scope of the Commerce Clause to allow Congress to limit how much wheat a man may grow on his own property for himself.  How did that affect "commerce ... among the several States"?  According to the Supreme Court, the farmer's growing of wheat on his own land, for his own use, enabled him to avoid buying wheat in the market, and that affected the overall price of wheat in interstate commerce.  Price, after all, is the result of supply and demand, and the farmer reduced the interstate demand for wheat by growing his own, and that affected the interstate price (ever so slightly).  That effect on interstate commerce was enough for Congress to have the power to limit how much wheat someone can grow on his own land!

The famous U.S. Supreme Court case of ''Wickard v. Filburn'' (1942) extended the scope of the Commerce Clause to allow Congress to limit how much wheat a man may grow on his own property for himself.  How did that affect "commerce ... among the several States"?  According to the Supreme Court, the farmer's growing of wheat on his own land, for his own use, enabled him to avoid buying wheat in the market, and that affected the overall price of wheat in interstate commerce.  Price, after all, is the result of supply and demand, and the farmer reduced the interstate demand for wheat by growing his own, and that affected the interstate price (ever so slightly).  That effect on interstate commerce was enough for Congress to have the power to limit how much wheat someone can grow on his own land!

But starting in 1995, the Supreme Court began to limit, albeit slightly, the very broad power under the Commerce Clause, beginning with its decision in ''United States v. Lopez'' (1995).  Congress had passed a law prohibiting the possession of firearms (guns) within 50 feet of schools.  Congress enacted this law as part of a gun control agenda, supposedly to reduce gun violence near schools.  (Actually, many studies have shown that there is less crime when there is more possession of guns, because guns are most often used for defensive purposes.)

But starting in 1995, the Supreme Court began to limit, albeit slightly, the very broad power under the Commerce Clause, beginning with its decision in ''United States v. Lopez'' (1995).  Congress had passed a law prohibiting the possession of firearms (guns) within 1,000 feet of schools.  Congress enacted this law as part of a gun control agenda, supposedly to reduce gun violence near schools.  (Actually, many studies have shown that there is less crime when there is more possession of guns, because guns are most often used for defensive purposes.)

A high school senior in San Antonio, Texas, was caught possessing a gun, and he was prosecuted under this federal law passed by Congress.  His defense in court was that the law is unconstitutional because it goes beyond the "enumerated" powers of Congress.  Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact gun control.  Congress based its law on the Commerce Clause.  Congress said that gun violence affects interstate commerce, and thus Congress could pass a law to reduce gun violence.  Under the view of Congress, its law prohibiting gun possession within 50 feet of a school was constitutional and enforceable.

A high school senior in San Antonio, Texas, was caught possessing a gun, and he was prosecuted under this federal law passed by Congress.  His defense in court was that the law is unconstitutional because it goes beyond the "enumerated" powers of Congress.  Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact gun control.  Congress based its law on the Commerce Clause.  Congress said that gun violence affects interstate commerce, and thus Congress could pass a law to reduce gun violence.  Under the view of Congress, its law prohibiting gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school was constitutional and enforceable.

By a 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (it has 9 Justices overall), the student won.  The Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by banning guns near schools.  Although the Commerce Clause has long been interpreted extremely broadly, Congress overstepped its power this time and the law was invalid.  The student could not be prosecuted by the federal government for violating this invalid federal law.  This decision halted the expansion in use of the Commerce Clause.

By a 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (it has 9 Justices overall), the student won.  The Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by banning guns near schools.  Although the Commerce Clause has long been interpreted extremely broadly, Congress overstepped its power this time and the law was invalid.  The student could not be prosecuted by the federal government for violating this invalid federal law.  This decision halted the expansion in use of the Commerce Clause.