Anti-rape Legislation and the Commerce Clause

The important question is whether the rape (criminal recognition) of girls students by two male athletes at the Virginia Tech University in 2000 violated the law on commerce terms. Federal law was passed (43 USC. 13981), and victims of "gender incentive violence against students" were allowed to seek damages in civil lawsuits through federal courts. Later, the victims used the law to raise a civil lawsuit in federal court.

By 1967, federal law was undertaken everywhere under commercial terms. The FBI then tried legislation through the municipal government's usual law. The Supreme Court, yes, the commercial term gives a broad range of federal laws, but said it does not extend to "traditional government function". Then in 1985, the federal government tried to legislate the city public transportation system. The Supreme Court stated, "We already have all the" traditional government function "jazz and, as long as we can justify it, we can do whatever Congress wants. However, Rehnquist said that most judgments basically abandoned the role of the court as a constitutional limiting factor, "I am young and you are old." The situation will be different. "

From the NLRB ruling from 1937 to 1995, the Supreme Court did not invalidate a single law under the Commercial Code. In 1995, the Supreme Court refrained from limiting Parliament's broad legislative orders under commercial terms by returning to the US v. Lopez incident, 514 US 549 (1995) for a more conservative interpretation of the article I attempted. In Lopez, the defendant in this case was accused of carrying a pistol to school in violation of the 1990 federal firearm school. The defendant alleged that the federal government was not authorized to manage guns at local schools and the government insisted it to be a commercial provision and the possession of firearms in the district would make it a violent crime affecting the overall economic situation It is possible to connect. We do not feel like doing this. "

Since the decision of Gibbons v. Ogden, many lawsuits involved commercial terms. As time went on, Congress kept a number of laws that might have little relationship with the business using business authority. In all aspects of history, the US Supreme Court has more or less agreed to use commerce terms to protect Congressional law. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act and stipulated that the monopoly or restriction (or such attempt) of interstate trade was illegal. Under this bill, the United States filed suit against five sugar companies so as not to merge after acquiring shares of the other four companies (EC Knight Co. acquired one of the four companies acquired ). Thus, the US sugar company dominates 98% of the US sugar business, it is considered a monopolist.