United States v. Lopez was a case decided on Apr 26, 1995, by the United States Supreme Court. It involved a high school student's conviction for bringing a
concealed weapon to his school and the constitutionality of the Gun-Free School
Zones Act of 1990.
In brief: On March 10, 1992, 12th-grade student Alfonso Lopez brought a
concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets to his high school, where he was

arrested based on an anonymous tip. A federal district court sentenced him to six
months in prison followed by two years' parole for violating the Gun-Free School
Zones Act of 1990. Lopez appealed his conviction, which was reversed by the
United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The Supreme Court then granted
certiorari review and ruled 5-4 to affirm the Court of Appeals' ruling that the act was
unconstitutional.
The issue: Was the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which drew its authority from the
federal power to regulate interstate commerce, constitutional?
The decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the act, which claimed to draw
authority from the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce,
overstepped the boundaries of that power. The majority opinion explained that the
possession of firearms in schools did not fit the definition of interstate commerce,
and so the law was unconstitutional.

How does this statement exemplify a limit on the power of the federal gov?

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the act, which claimed to draw

authority from the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce,

overstepped the boundaries of that power

Explanation:

Was the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which drew its authority from the

federal power to regulate interstate commerce, constitutional?

The decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the act, which claimed to draw

authority from the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce,

overstepped the boundaries of that power. The majority opinion explained that the

possession of firearms in schools did not fit the definition of interstate commerce,

and so the law was unconstitutional.

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation:

after the civil war, and with the termination of slavery, the south was faced with a big problem; what was supposed to happen and how they were supposed to deal with the freedom and the rights that black people and freed slaves had gained as a result of the north defeating the south and forcing the end of slavery. first, most, if not all, of the workforce of the south came from slaves and they did not have an option to replace the loss of said workforce. second, particularly in the south, people were convinced that black people were lesser, less intelligent, less capable and less smart than whites. this posed a huge problem for them. also, southerners were faced with another issue; freed slaves now had a say in how their lives would be lived and the right to politically choose the way they would be governed. people in the south did not want to accept this, none of this and this opposition and the conflicts that arose from it, not to mention the afereffects of the war, forced the congress of the time to enact and enforce the reconstruction plans that had been proposed by president andrew johnson.