A. Identify a common constitutional principle used to make a ruling in both Lopez v. U.S. and United States v. Morrison. B. Explain how the facts of Lopez v. U.S. and U.S. v. Morrison led to similar holdings. C. Describe an action that Congress could take to respond to U.S. v. Morrison if it disagreed with the decision.
A. Identify a common constitutional principle used to make a ruling in both Lopez v. U.S. and United States v. Morrison. B. Explain how the facts of Lopez v. U.S. and U.S. v. Morrison led to similar holdings. C. Describe an action that Congress could take to respond to U.S. v. Morrison if it disagreed with the decision.
Related questions
Question
Lopez v. US FRQ
![In 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA provided $1.6
billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic
and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil remedy in cases prosecutors
chose to leave un-prosecuted. VAWA also established the Office of Violence Against Women
within the Department of Justice.
In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala alleged
that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia
Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under
Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual
assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished.
A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's
administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive."
Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford,
and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack
violated the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy
for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismiss
Brzonkala's suit on the ground that VAWA civil litigation was unconstitutional.
In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute for civil
remedy. The Court stated that [i]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice
could fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of...Morrison. But under our federal
system that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the United
States.
A. Identify a common constitutional principle used to make a ruling in both Lopez v. U.S. and
United States v. Morrison.
B. Explain how the facts of Lopez v. U.S. and U.S. v. Morrison led to similar holdings.
C. Describe an action that Congress could take to respond to U.S. v. Morrison if it disagreed
with the decision,](/v2/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.bartleby.com%2Fqna-images%2Fquestion%2Fc75418b0-474c-40d1-810b-ce775f84e9cf%2Fcc813dc3-0864-43f1-8fb5-eae5cb753dfe%2F52gmuch_processed.jpeg&w=3840&q=75)
Transcribed Image Text:In 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA provided $1.6
billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic
and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil remedy in cases prosecutors
chose to leave un-prosecuted. VAWA also established the Office of Violence Against Women
within the Department of Justice.
In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala alleged
that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia
Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under
Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual
assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished.
A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's
administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive."
Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford,
and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack
violated the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy
for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismiss
Brzonkala's suit on the ground that VAWA civil litigation was unconstitutional.
In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute for civil
remedy. The Court stated that [i]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice
could fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of...Morrison. But under our federal
system that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the United
States.
A. Identify a common constitutional principle used to make a ruling in both Lopez v. U.S. and
United States v. Morrison.
B. Explain how the facts of Lopez v. U.S. and U.S. v. Morrison led to similar holdings.
C. Describe an action that Congress could take to respond to U.S. v. Morrison if it disagreed
with the decision,
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
