AP GOV QUESTION PLS HELP!!!!

Question

In 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal court, arguing that the Controlled Substances Act exceeded Congress's power.

In Gonzales v. Raich (2004), the Court delivered a 6 to 3 opinion that held that Congress had the authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress's power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.

Source: Oyez, Gonzales v. Raich (2004)

(A) Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Gonzales v. Raich (2004) and United States v. Lopez (1995).

(B) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of United States v. Lopez led to a different holding than the holding in Gonzales v. Raich.

(C) Explain how the holding in Gonzales v. Raich affected the balance of power between the states and the national government.

Answer 1

A)

The constitutional clause common to both United States v. Lopez (1995) and Gonzales v. Raich (2004) is the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

(B)

In United States v. Lopez, the Court held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority because possessing a gun near a school was not an economic activity and did not substantially affect interstate commerce.

However, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court ruled that Congress could regulate locally grown marijuana because it was part of a broader economic class of activities — the national marijuana market — that substantially affects interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress had authority to regulate intrastate marijuana use as part of regulating the interstate drug market.

(C)

The holding in Gonzales v. Raich strengthened the power of the national government relative to the states by expanding Congress’s ability to regulate local activities under the Commerce Clause, even when state laws conflict with federal law.