1. Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of Gonzales v. Raich led to a different holding from the holding in United States v. Lopez.
My answer was
In Gonzales v. Raich, the decision was that the government could have the authority to prohibit the use and possession of marijuana. While in United States v. Lopez, it was decided that the Gun-free School Zones Act of 1990 was struck down by SCOTUS (The Supreme Court of the United States) who ruled that the act fell outside the authority of the commerce clause, as it would be very unlikely of an individual who committed a crime with a gun in a school zone to go to another state. The SCOTUS ruled that the Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary, because marijuana could be taken outside of California and to another state, meaning that it is part of interstate commerce.
Is this incorrect? Is it mandatory to bring up the economic effect? I thought it can have many different answers.
