The doctrines of federalism and separation of powers prohibit the federal government from interfering with states where there is no direct connection to a constitutionally delegated federal power. As a result, attempts at federal gun control were found unconstitutional in the cases of United States v. Lopez and Printz v. United States. Assuming that the court's interpretation of the law was

Question

accurate, do you believe that the states' power to regulate in these matters should outweigh the federal government's right to do so? What, if anything, should be done?

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Student answers will vary based on whether they believe in states' rights or in increased federal regulation. The student should be able to state the facts and reasoning in the cases. Lopez involved an attempt to create federal legislation making the possession of a gun in a school zone a crime. Printz invalidated a provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act establishing a system of background checks on gun buyers and delegating to the states the responsibility to administer the programs until the federal government could take over. In both cases, the federal government claimed jurisdiction based on the Interstate Commerce Clause and the argument was rejected by both courts. In answering this question, the student should give a logical and thoughtful explanation of federalism and what it means in the U.S. system. Many students will come to realize the quality of visionary thought exhibited by the constitution's framers and the true separation of powers we have in this country. Students should also recognize the true inconsistencies that exist both from state to state and between the state and federal governments. Those who wish to grant the federal government more power will need to recognize that a change in policy will require a constitutional amendment and how difficult change actually is.