Landmark Decisions of Supreme Court
Gibbons v. Ogden
This depicts a steamboat often seen on waters at the time. Steamboats were a reliable power source for boating.
The image here summarizes the situation. Gibbons is stating that the river is theirs while Ogden opposes their statements.
On the right is a portrait of Thomas Gibbons and on the right is an image of Aaron Ogden.
Wickard v. Filburn
At the time of the Great Depression, Congress passed a law that restricted the amount of wheat that some farmers could grow. This was done in an attempt to raise the price of wheat. A farmer named Roscoe Filburn argued that he had planned on using some of the wheat for his own personal consumption, and that Congress could restrict him from growing wheat that he did not intend to sell. He argued, saying that because he was not selling the wheat or giving it away, he should be not involved in interstate commerce. The farmer's choice meant that he could not buy any other wheat. If many farmers did the same thing as him, they would greatly impact interstate commerce.
Above are grains of wheat as found on a farm. This is the topic of argument in the Wickard v. Filburn case.
Here the image depicts the case between Wickard and Filburn. Roscoe Filburn was restricted from certain uses of his own wheat he had farmed.
The image above shows the outlaw farmer, Roscoe Filburn. In the image, he is surrounded by grains of wheat.
U.S. v. Lopez
The rivalry of the United States versus Lopez started when Alfonzo Lopez, a student, carried a concealed weapon into his high school. He was charged under Texas law with possession of a firearm on school property. Congress passed a law that made it a federal crime to posses a gun while in a school zone. This law was broadly seen as unconstitutional. For the first time in many years, the Supreme Court decided that Congress had surpassed its Commerce Clause authority and the Court vetoed this law. It was stated that if you were to carry a gun in a school zone, it would not be considered an economic activity.
Lopez was charged for possession of a firearm. He was on school property.
Above shows a school photo of Lopez (middle). He was a 12th grade student at a high school in Texas.
The Supreme Court decided to veto the law. They did not consider it as an economic activity.
In the case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995), a 12th grader was prosecuted for carrying a gun on school property at his high school in Texas. It is clear that the treatment of the issue was just for Alfonso Lopez, the student convicted to this crime. Congress rightfully passed a law that made it a federal crime to posses a gun while in a school zone, which Lopez was very guilty of. This law was broadly seen as unconstitutional; however, I would have to disagree with this popular argument, and take the side of Congress. This law was solely made by Congress to help protect people and keep them safe, particularly students and teachers, while at school to learn and work. Then, for the first time in many years, the Supreme Court decided that Congress had surpassed its Commerce Clause authority and the Court and unfairly vetoed this law. It was stated that if you were to carry a gun in a school zone, it would not be considered an economic activity. What is hard to comprehend is the reason for which the Supreme Court struck down this law. Isn't it crucial for our government to find ways to keep their people safe and protected from other people within this country. Also, by getting rid of this law, did the Supreme Court showed a form of support for the student that brought the gun into school? For these reasons, it would only be right to take Congress' side and want for this law to remain untouched.