Federalism and Rights: McDonald v. Chicago vs. United States v. Lopez

In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued several notable decisions regarding the rights of individuals versus the rights of states. Two significant cases that illustrate this tension are McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and United States v. Lopez (1995). In McDonald, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Lopez, the Court held that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted a law banning guns in school zones.

Compare and contrast these two cases regarding their implications for federalism and individual rights. In your response, be sure to address the legal principles used by the Court, as well as the broader implications for the relationship between state and federal powers.