<P> The Lopez decision was clarified in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), in which the Supreme Court invalidated § 40302 of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA"). The VAWA created civil liability for the commission of a gender - based violent crime, but without any jurisdictional requirement of a connection to Interstate Commerce or commercial activity . 42 U.S.C. § 13981 (c). Once again, the Court was presented with a Congressional attempt to criminalize traditional local criminal conduct . As in Lopez, it could not be argued that State regulation alone would be ineffective to protect the aggregate effects of local violence . The Court explained that in both Lopez and Morrison "the noneconomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision ." Furthermore, the Court pointed out that in neither case was there an "' express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach (to those instances that) have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce ."' Id . at 1751 . In both cases, Congress criminalized activity that was not commercial in nature without including a jurisdictional element establishing the necessary connection between the criminalized activity and Interstate Commerce . </P> <P> The Court found in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) that, unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states . </P> <P> Many described the Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause cases as a doctrine of "New Federalism". The outer limits of that doctrine were delineated by Gonzales v. Raich, in which Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy departed from their previous positions as parts of the Lopez and Morrison majorities to uphold a federal law regarding marijuana . The Court found the federal law valid, although the marijuana in question had been grown and consumed within a single state, and had never entered Interstate Commerce . The court held Congress may regulate an intrastate economic good if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce . </P> <P> During the Rehnquist court and to present, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has played an integral part in the Court's view of the Commerce Clause . The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution while other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people . The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life . The Commerce Clause has been the most broadly interpreted clause in the Constitution, making way for many laws which, some argue, contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution . Justice Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to Gonzales, </P>

The constitution gives the united states government power to regulate interstate or foreign