State of Confusion
State of ConfusionState of Confusion
BUS 415 Business Law
November 1, 2010
State of Confusion
Tanya Trucker owns an out-of-state trucking company and resides in the State of Denial. For the purpose of conducting her business, she frequently finds the need to drive her truck across other states; including the State of Confusion. Recently, the State of Confusion ratified a state law demanding all towing trailers and trucks traveling through the State of Confusion to have the B-type truck hitch installed on the vehicle. Truck owners and drivers choosing not to install the B-type truck hitch are not allowed permission to use the highways of the State of Confusion. Instead of driving through the State of Confusion, truck operators must drive around on the perimeter of the state, which will cost the trucking companies extra time and money.
State and court system jurisdiction handling Tanya’s suit and explain
Because the State of Confusion acted in violation of the Commerce clause contained within the U. S. Constitution, the federal court becomes the filing jurisdiction for Tanya Trucker’s lawsuit. Although the 10th Amendment to the Constitution sanctions states the power to regulate intrastate commerce, the Commerce clause included within the Constitution of the United States. In particular Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three grants Congressional body authority of commerce regulation and trade actions conducted with the Indian tribes, other states, and foreign nations. The Commerce Clause justifies the use of federal laws in non-interstate affairs.
State of Confusion statute constitutionality. Discuss the legal reasoning.
The State of Confusion statute does not appear constitutional. The first issue is whether the State of Confusion is attempting to restrain trade from out-of-state businesses by trying to enforce the B-type truck hitch. Such an effort would give the State of Confusion an unfair benefit. Article One, Section Nine states, “No Preference shall be given by...