Which legal precedent is most closely associated with the expansion of federal regulatory powers in both Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich?

Study for the AP Government and Politics Federalism Test. Analyze questions with hints and explanations. Ace your exam with our resources!

The selection of the commerce clause applications as the correct answer highlights its critical role in expanding federal regulatory powers, particularly as demonstrated in the cases of Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich.

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court ruled that even personal cultivation of wheat intended for personal consumption could influence interstate commerce and therefore fell under federal regulatory authority. This case established a broad interpretation of the commerce clause, allowing the federal government to regulate activities that, while local in nature, could cumulatively affect national markets.

Similarly, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court upheld federal authority to regulate home-grown cannabis, again justifying it under the commerce clause. The ruling emphasized that even intrastate activities could significantly impact the interstate market for marijuana, underscoring the federal government’s ability to enforce regulations based on potential economic effects.

Both cases illustrate how the commerce clause serves as a powerful legal foundation for the expansion of federal powers, enabling Congress to legislate on a wide array of economic activities that may seem local but are linked to broader economic implications. This precedent emphasizes the government's authority to intervene in various sectors, reflecting a robust interpretation of federal powers in relation to state activities.

Subscribe

Get the latest from Examzify

You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy