Rationale
The government argued that possession of a firearm in a school zone can be expected to lead to violent crime, which can be expected to impact economy and travelling in the area, as well as to produce a citizenry with less of an education due to the distraction of the violent crime and in the long-term, a weaker economy. Thus, possession of a firearm at a school falls under jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause.
Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the court, ruled that Congress had the power to regulate only :
- the channels of commerce,
- the instrumentalities of commerce, and
- action that substantially effects interstate commerce.
He dismissed the government's argument, reasoning that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. He concludes:
- To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Adimittedly, some of our proior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not eumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.