Hi All, I had some (probably very basic) questions about the Us vs Lopez. In the third paragraph it says that: "The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged respondent by complaint with violating the Gun Free School Zones act of 1990. " So once new criminal charges are charged do the federal ones get discharged? Can they not be concurrently valid on a case ? Maybe this is not directly related to the constitutionality of the law but howcome a new charge makes another one disappear ?
Abridged opinions. Hi all, It seems to me that the texts found on the moodle website are abridged possibly with "..." markings. Is that the case really? If that is true who is compiling these shorter versions? By the court or maybe by the law200 course?
There is also a italics section at the start of the opinion giving very brief summary of the case. I guess that is not written by the supreme court justices. Right ?
One thing that made me think about the abridgement is the US vs Morrison case. That opinion only talks about the Commerce Clause aspect of the unconstitutionality of the mentioned law. After reading the conclusion I was very interested in the arguments and reasoning regarding the section 5 of the 14th amendment. I think that explanation is missing from the given text.
Secondly, in the future if we would like to read the abridged versions of future opinions, how and where can we find them ? Are these compilations also publicly available ?
Great question -- yes, these opinions are abridged. I added the synopsis in italics and chose which excerpts to include. I did this to reduce the amount of reading in the course -- some of these opinions are very lengthy and can be quite confusing. I am trying to keep everyone focused on the issue at hand. For example, since we're dealing with the commerce clause this week, I excerpted only the sections discussing that constitutional provision. While it would be interesting to discuss the 14th Amendment, I believe it would be premature. Of course I encourage anyone to read the complete opinion. They are all available online, either through the Supreme Court's website or simply by googling the titles. Thanks!
District Attorney in Virginia role in US vs Morrison.
Hi all, I had a question about the lack of action by the Virginia state government in the US v Morrison case. After an alleged rape conviction (although this case was initially tried locally in the Virginia Tech college) does the district attorney not intervene and open a case against the alleged rapist ? Do rape acts require a plaintiff to go to court ? This may be a more direct question to the "police power" of the state of Virginia rather than the Commerce clause. But I was puzzled how come this alleged rape case did not find itself in front of a judge even without Brzonkala's action.
Another great question. It turns out that in Morrison, a state grand jury decided there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges against the alleged rapists. The plaintiff opted to sue in federal court for money damages (i.e., for a monetary award) under the private right of action created under the Violence Against Women Act. So certainly, yes, the state had the power to pursue the alleged perpetrators.
Hi All,
ReplyDeleteI had some (probably very basic) questions about the Us vs Lopez.
In the third paragraph it says that:
"The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged respondent by complaint with violating the Gun Free School Zones act of 1990. "
So once new criminal charges are charged do the federal ones get discharged? Can they not be concurrently valid on a case ?
Maybe this is not directly related to the constitutionality of the law but howcome a new charge makes another one disappear ?
State and federal charges can be brought at once -- they are separate sovereigns, and each can pursue the violation.
DeleteAbridged opinions.
ReplyDeleteHi all,
It seems to me that the texts found on the moodle website are abridged possibly with "..." markings.
Is that the case really?
If that is true who is compiling these shorter versions? By the court or maybe by the law200 course?
There is also a italics section at the start of the opinion giving very brief summary of the case. I guess that is not written by the supreme court justices. Right ?
One thing that made me think about the abridgement is the US vs Morrison case. That opinion only talks about the Commerce Clause aspect of the unconstitutionality of the mentioned law. After reading the conclusion I was very interested in the arguments and reasoning regarding the section 5 of the 14th amendment. I think that explanation is missing from the given text.
Secondly, in the future if we would like to read the abridged versions of future opinions, how and where can we find them ? Are these compilations also publicly available ?
Thanks
Hakan
Great question -- yes, these opinions are abridged. I added the synopsis in italics and chose which excerpts to include. I did this to reduce the amount of reading in the course -- some of these opinions are very lengthy and can be quite confusing. I am trying to keep everyone focused on the issue at hand. For example, since we're dealing with the commerce clause this week, I excerpted only the sections discussing that constitutional provision. While it would be interesting to discuss the 14th Amendment, I believe it would be premature. Of course I encourage anyone to read the complete opinion. They are all available online, either through the Supreme Court's website or simply by googling the titles. Thanks!
DeleteDistrict Attorney in Virginia role in US vs Morrison.
ReplyDeleteHi all,
I had a question about the lack of action by the Virginia state government in the US v Morrison case.
After an alleged rape conviction (although this case was initially tried locally in the Virginia Tech college) does the district attorney not intervene and open a case against the alleged rapist ?
Do rape acts require a plaintiff to go to court ? This may be a more direct question to the "police power" of the state of Virginia rather than the Commerce clause. But I was puzzled how come this alleged rape case did not find itself in front of a judge even without Brzonkala's action.
Another great question. It turns out that in Morrison, a state grand jury decided there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges against the alleged rapists. The plaintiff opted to sue in federal court for money damages (i.e., for a monetary award) under the private right of action created under the Violence Against Women Act. So certainly, yes, the state had the power to pursue the alleged perpetrators.
ReplyDelete