This case represents a bit of a shift in the Court’s thinking on the limitations
on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.  This court adopts a strong
“Formalistic,” word-based, interpretation of the Commerce Clause.  And there is
nowhere else that this formalistic point can be found to be strongest than in the
concurring opinion of Thomas, J.  Although congress still has broad, plenary
power, this Court declined to recognize an adequate connection (substantial
effect) between guns on school grounds and interstate commerce.  Court still
employs rational basis test, but this legislation did not pass that test.  Keep in
mind that Lopez does not overrule any case that we’ve covered in the past,
although the court does demonstrate a major shift from other courts’ (i.e. the
“New Deal” court) construal of the limitations placed on Congress in exercising
its powers under the Commerce Clause.  Plainly speaking, the court held that
possessing a gun near a school cannot be considered as something that falls within
the rubric of “commerce” as meant under the Commerce Clause.  Although Professor
Jamar brings up these points:
1.    How can the Fed Government regulate education
2.    How can the Fed Government fix the problems in Education
3.    Realistically speaking, an area’s educational standards or composition
affects its economy
4.    Having a gun on or near school grounds does affect the quality of
education the students get