What is the "jurisdictional element" in Lopez?

[Myron Moskovitz]

As I just told my class, "jurisdictional element" is a misleading term.  It
has nothing to do with subject matter jurisdiction or personal
jurisdiction.  It means nothing more than that Congress has regulated an
"instrumentality" of interstate commerce.

A perfect example arose in *Champion v. Ames*, where the upheld a statute
barring the interstate transportation of lottery tickets.

The guns-near-schools statute examined in *Lopez* contained no
"jurisdictional" element, as it applied to all guns, not just those
transported in IC.  Post-*Lopez*, Congress added a "jurisdictional element"
- pretty much guaranteeing its constitutionality, but narrowing somewhat
the scope of the former coverage, as now every prosecutor will have to prove
that element of the crime: that the gun was transported in IC.  Shouldn't be
much of a problem - unless, perhaps, the gun was made by Smith & Wesson in a
state where Smith & Wesson makes the guns.

Myron Moskovitz

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:23 AM, <RJLipkin at aol.com> wrote:

>          Everytime I teach Lopez I struggle to explain the "jurisdictional
> element."  Is it (a) a declaration that the regulated intrastate act is
> passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause, (b) an element of the crime, (c) actual
> proof that possessing a gun in a school zone does in fact have a substantial
> effect on interstate commerce, (d) all of the above, or (e) something
> entirely different.
>
>         If it is (b) or (c) presumably the jurisdictional element will
> attempt to tie possession of a gun to interstate commerce by saying
> something about persons and/or guns.  But if that's the case why wouldn't
> persons or guns fall into the "instrumentalities" category thus making it
> unnecessary to appeal to the substantial effects test at all.
>
>         I know. I need a tutorial on* Lopez*.
>
>        I've asked this question before and I'm sure that many list
> members--perhaps all--
> know the answers to these elementary questions, thus, off-list replies are
> preferred. Thank you.
>
> Bobby
>
> Robert Justin Lipkin
> Professor of Law
> Widener University School of Law
> Delaware
> *
> Ratio Juris*, Contributor:  http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/*
> Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief
> http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the
> latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com<http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014>
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20080915/2a0ccfb6/attachment.htm