Lopez v. US FRQ In 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA provided $1.6billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automaticand mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil remedy in cases prosecutorschose to leave un-prosecuted. VAWA also established the Office of Violence Against Womenwithin the Department of Justice.In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala allegedthat Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at VirginiaTech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford underVirginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexualassault 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'sadministrative 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 attackviolated the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedyfor the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismissBrzonkala'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 civilremedy. The Court stated that [i]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justicecould fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of...Morrison. But under our federalsystem that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the UnitedStates.A. Identify a common constitutional principle used to make a ruling in both Lopez v. U.S. andUnited 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 disagreedwith the decision,

Question

Lopez v. US FRQ In 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA provided $1.6billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automaticand mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil remedy in cases prosecutorschose to leave un-prosecuted. VAWA also established the Office of Violence Against Womenwithin the Department of Justice.In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala allegedthat Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at VirginiaTech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford underVirginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexualassault 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'sadministrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be &#34;excessive.&#34;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 attackviolated the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedyfor the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismissBrzonkala'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 civilremedy. The Court stated that [i]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justicecould fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of...Morrison. But under our federalsystem that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the UnitedStates.A. Identify a common constitutional principle used to make a ruling in both Lopez v. U.S. andUnited 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 disagreedwith the decision,

Accepted Answer

In both Lopez vs US and United States v Morrison case the supreme court used the principle of…