"Souter"@en . "Possession of a handgun near a school is not an economic activity and doesn't have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and therefore cannot be regulated by Congress. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is unconstitutional."@en . . . . . . . . "\uBBF8\uAD6D \uB300 \uB85C\uD398\uC988 \uC0AC\uAC74"@ko . . . "United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr."@en . "United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr."@en . . . "United States v. Lopez"@fr . "O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas"@en . . . . . . . . . . . "Breyer"@en . . . "Kennedy"@en . "1120399480"^^ . "\uBBF8\uAD6D \uB300 \uB85C\uD398\uC988 \uC0AC\uAC74(United States v. Lopez)\uB294 \uD1B5\uC0C1\uC870\uD56D \uAD00\uB828 \uBBF8\uAD6D \uC5F0\uBC29\uB300\uBC95\uC6D0\uC758 \uC720\uBA85\uD310\uB840\uC774\uB2E4."@ko . . "1995"^^ . . "25920.0"^^ . . "33632593"^^ . . . . . "Wickard v. Filburn"@en . . . . . . "O'Connor"@en . . . "United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995), was a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Commerce Clause. It was the first case since 1937 in which the Court held that Congress had exceeded its power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. In his dissent, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer argued that Congress could regulate handgun possession under the Commerce Clause because gun violence could have a significant effect on interstate commerce by impairing educational environments."@en . "United States v. Lopez"@en . . "In de zaak Verenigde Staten v. Lopez bepaalde een meerderheid van de negen rechters van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof in Washington D.C. dat het aan het Congres niet was toegestaan onder de bepalingen van de van de grondwet - die de wetgevende macht het recht geeft commerci\u00EBle ondernemingen zowel in het binnen- als buitenland te regelen - het aan scholieren van openbare scholen in Texas te verbieden om vuurwapens mee naar school te nemen. In 1990 was een wet aangenomen die scholen tot een wapenvrije zone verklaarde; het Congres baseerde zich op de Commerce Clause, en beweerde dat schietincidenten uiteindelijk slecht zouden zijn voor de economie. Uiteindelijk beslisten vijf rechters dat de wet ongrondwettelijk was, omdat ze te veel macht gaf aan \u00E9\u00E9n zijde van de Trias Politica."@nl . . "Verenigde Staten v. Lopez"@nl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "L\u2019arr\u00EAt \u00C9tats-Unis contre Lopez du 26 avril 1995 a marqu\u00E9 un tournant dans la jurisprudence de la Cour supr\u00EAme des \u00C9tats-Unis. En effet, jusqu'\u00E0 cette date, la Cour s'\u00E9tait toujours prononc\u00E9e en faveur de l'\u00C9tat f\u00E9d\u00E9ral au d\u00E9triment des \u00C9tats f\u00E9d\u00E9r\u00E9s (et ce depuis son premier grand arr\u00EAt, Marbury v. Madison), la Cour renverse sa jurisprudence bicentenaire et tranche en faveur des \u00C9tats f\u00E9d\u00E9r\u00E9s. Le pr\u00E9sident de la Cour \u00E9tait fortement favorable aux \u00C9tats.En l'esp\u00E8ce, cette restriction des pouvoirs de l'\u00C9tat f\u00E9d\u00E9ral passe par une interpr\u00E9tation restrictive de la clause de commerce (clause de la Constitution f\u00E9d\u00E9rale qui fonde sa comp\u00E9tence). Il s'agissait de savoir si la clause permettait \u00E0 l'\u00C9tat f\u00E9d\u00E9ral d'interdire les armes dans un certain p\u00E9rim\u00E8tre autour des \u00E9coles. La Cour a estim\u00E9 que"@fr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "\uBBF8\uAD6D \uB300 \uB85C\uD398\uC988 \uC0AC\uAC74(United States v. Lopez)\uB294 \uD1B5\uC0C1\uC870\uD56D \uAD00\uB828 \uBBF8\uAD6D \uC5F0\uBC29\uB300\uBC95\uC6D0\uC758 \uC720\uBA85\uD310\uB840\uC774\uB2E4."@ko . . "--11-08"^^ . . . . . "--04-26"^^ . "L\u2019arr\u00EAt \u00C9tats-Unis contre Lopez du 26 avril 1995 a marqu\u00E9 un tournant dans la jurisprudence de la Cour supr\u00EAme des \u00C9tats-Unis. En effet, jusqu'\u00E0 cette date, la Cour s'\u00E9tait toujours prononc\u00E9e en faveur de l'\u00C9tat f\u00E9d\u00E9ral au d\u00E9triment des \u00C9tats f\u00E9d\u00E9r\u00E9s (et ce depuis son premier grand arr\u00EAt, Marbury v. Madison), la Cour renverse sa jurisprudence bicentenaire et tranche en faveur des \u00C9tats f\u00E9d\u00E9r\u00E9s. Le pr\u00E9sident de la Cour \u00E9tait fortement favorable aux \u00C9tats.En l'esp\u00E8ce, cette restriction des pouvoirs de l'\u00C9tat f\u00E9d\u00E9ral passe par une interpr\u00E9tation restrictive de la clause de commerce (clause de la Constitution f\u00E9d\u00E9rale qui fonde sa comp\u00E9tence). Il s'agissait de savoir si la clause permettait \u00E0 l'\u00C9tat f\u00E9d\u00E9ral d'interdire les armes dans un certain p\u00E9rim\u00E8tre autour des \u00E9coles. La Cour a estim\u00E9 que cette l\u00E9gislation relevait de la seule appr\u00E9ciation des \u00C9tats."@fr . . "Stevens"@en . . . "172800.0"^^ . "Thomas"@en . "514"^^ . . "Rehnquist"@en . . . . . "In de zaak Verenigde Staten v. Lopez bepaalde een meerderheid van de negen rechters van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof in Washington D.C. dat het aan het Congres niet was toegestaan onder de bepalingen van de van de grondwet - die de wetgevende macht het recht geeft commerci\u00EBle ondernemingen zowel in het binnen- als buitenland te regelen - het aan scholieren van openbare scholen in Texas te verbieden om vuurwapens mee naar school te nemen."@nl . . "1994"^^ . . . . . . . . "Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg"@en . . . . ""@en . "United States v. Lopez,"@en . . . . . "United States v. Lopez"@en . . . . "28767"^^ . "United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995), was a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Commerce Clause. It was the first case since 1937 in which the Court held that Congress had exceeded its power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The case arose from a San Antonio high school student's challenge to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (part of the Crime Control Act of 1990), which banned possession of handguns within 1000 feet (305 meters) of a school. In a majority decision joined by four other justices, Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that Lopez' possession of the gun was not economic activity and its scope was not sufficiently cabined, and so was outside the broad reach of the Commerce Clause. After the Lopez decision, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate or foreign commerce. In his dissent, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer argued that Congress could regulate handgun possession under the Commerce Clause because gun violence could have a significant effect on interstate commerce by impairing educational environments. Though it did not reverse any past ruling about the meaning of the Commerce Clause, Lopez raised serious questions as to how far the Court might be willing to go in curbing Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause. The Court would later further limit congressional powers under the Commerce Clause in United States v. Morrison (2000)."@en . "549"^^ . . . .