Question

compare gibbons v. ogden, 1824 and united states v. lopez 1995 and how the commerce clause has been interpreted by the supreme court in these two cases

Answer 1

The case Gibbons vs. Ogden in 1824, was a trial trying to resolve the issue of monopoly over navigation waters.

A New York state Law gave Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston, the monopoly within the state jurisdiction. That is when Aaron Ogden, with the support of other competitors in the industry, tried to stop the monopoly.

Judges concluded that navigation operation was reserved to be exercise by the Congress under a Commerce Clause. The New York law was invalid.

The López vs. the U.S, case refers to an incident with Alfonzo López, a 12th- grade student that carried a concealed weapon inside a San Antonio, Texas High School facilities. He was arrested under Texas Law for possession of a firearm, but one day after, FBI charged him with violating a federal criminal Act of 1990, that makes reference to Gun-Free Zones in the United States.

In those two cases, the Commerce Clause was interpreted rigorously by the Supreme Court.

In the Ogden case, Judges concluded that the navigation operation in interstate commerce was a faculty reserved by the Congress under the Commerce Clause. That is why the original state law was invalid.

In the López case, they concluded that the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded the power of Congress to rule under the Commerce Clause. That law is a criminal one and does not refer to any economic transaction.

Answer 2

Gibbons v. Ogden and United States v. Lopez demonstrate that the interpretation of the Commerce Clause by the Supreme Court has been straight.

For instance, in Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court established that states lacked the power to legislate on the regulation of commerce, which falls under the exclusive responsibility of Congress.

However, in the United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court established that Congress did not have the powers to use the Commerce Clause to legislate on issues not covered by the clause. Therefore, Congress could not prohibit the possession of a gun in local school zones using the umbrella of the Commerce Clause.

Thus, in both cases, the Supreme Court recognized the limits of states and the limits of Congress to legislate on issues, thereby differentiating between economic (federal) and criminal (state) matters.

Read more: at https://brainly.com/question/20965318 and https://brainly.com/question/19756311