...S. District Court should have jurisdiction over the suit. The case involving the State of Confusion which imposed a statute that required all trucks and towing trailers that passed through the state to install a B-type hitch that is only manufactured by a company operating in the State of Confusion. This statute conflicts with the Commerce Clause which regulates interstate commerce thus should be heard in the appropriate U.S. District Court. U.S. District Courts hear cases involving federal questions and being that the statute interferes with the activities that affect interstate commerce that is federally regulated. The Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, treaties, federal laws and federal regulations are the supreme law of the land (Cheeseman, 2010). State laws that conflict with valid federal laws are considered unconstitutional. The U.S. Commerce Clause gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This clause also allows the federal government to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce. Since the trucks would be passing through the State of Confusion it falls under interstate commerce regulation. The statute directly and substantially conflicts with the federal government’s authority to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce which makes the statute that the State of Confusion imposed is unconstitutional. In the case Tanya Trucker v. The State of Confusion, the federal government has not made an attempt...
Words: 935 - Pages: 4
...State of Confusion the U.S. District Court should have jurisdiction over the suit. The case involving the State of Confusion that imposed a statute that required all trucks and towing trailers that delivery through the state to install a B-type hitch only manufactured by a company operating in the State of Confusion. This statute conflicts with the Commerce Clause that regulates interstate commerce thus should be heard in the appropriate U.S. District Court. U.S. District Courts hear cases involving federal questions, and because the statute interferes with the activities that affect interstate commerce federally regulate The Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, treaties, federal laws and federal regulations are the supreme law of the land (Cheeseman, 2010). State laws that conflict with valid federal laws considered unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes. The Commerce Clause also gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This clause also allows the federal government to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce. Because the trucks would be passing through the State of Confusion it falls under interstate commerce regulation. The statute directly and substantially conflicts with the federal government’s authority to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce that...
Words: 930 - Pages: 4
...significant power to the individual state governments. States are not mere provinces set up to take orders from a central authority in Washington DC and execute these orders regionally. States are afforded sovereign powers of their own. In Federalist #45, James Madison summarized the powers assigned to the individual states: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” “The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers. When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor. It was clear in the minds of our founding fathers while they were framing the constitution that federal government was supposed to indulge itself in...
Words: 2229 - Pages: 9
... What Court will have Jurisdiction of Tanya’s Suit? Tanya Trucker resides in the state of Denial and she is placing suit against the state of Confusion. Therefore, the federal court will have jurisdiction over this case. Cheeseman (2010) states, “A case may be brought in federal court if there is diversity of citizenship” (p 12). Tanya Trucker could file suit in the federal court for violating the commerce clause of the constitution. “The commerce clause grants the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce” (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 73). The interstate commerce has the ability to pass laws that regulate the behaviors of business. Is the Confusion Statue constitutional? The Confusion statue is not constitutional. The interstate commerce clause shows this in Article I, Section 9. Cheeseman, 2010 states, “No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, on state, be obligated to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another” (p 87). This clearly shows that the state of Confusion cannot charge dues, the special hitch, to any other state such as the state of Denial. What provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by a court to determine the statute’s validity? The federal government has the responsibility to enact safety requirements for vehicles, this includes trucks. Where Tanya...
Words: 1490 - Pages: 6
...wishes to file would be the Federal District Court. The statute appointed by Confusion ordering all trucks and trailers to use the [pic]B-type hitch is a matter of interstate commerce. Tanya will be able to file a suite in her own state of Denial over the state law in Confusion because this matter will lie in federal courts. Is the Confusion statute constitutional? Discuss The federal government has not regulated[pic] what kind [pic]of[pic] hitch a truck or trailer should be used on the roads of the US. If the federal government has not regulated trailer hitches, a state cannot regulate within their own state, as that regulation would encompass the entire country. The state of Confusion also has a very obvious monopoly in place as the B-type hitches are not only manufactured within Confusion, but they can also only be purchased in Confusion. If the federal government were to accept this statute they would also be allowing a monopoly to continue. The Confusion statute is not constitutional because not only does the law affect in state trucks but also out of state trucks, the law imposed can cause hardships on some trucking companies that affect the free flow of trading [pic]in the state of Confusion. The[pic] provisions that the [pic]federal government[pic] will use by the [pic]court to determine the statute’s validity is to[pic] enact safety requirements for all vehicles. Tanya Trucker has followed all other regulations required and should not be charged with the...
Words: 1558 - Pages: 7
...Rachael Gray Writing Assignment 1 Does the United States federal government have a legitimate national security interest, drawing on its powers found in the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, to regulate state-issued driver licenses? Why or why not? The United States Federal Government does have a legitimate national security interest by regulating state-issued driver licenses. Commerce is defined in the dictionary as “the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place”. Given that definition it is rather obvious that Drivers Licenses are deemed commerce. The commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution hence its name gives the federal government the...
Words: 652 - Pages: 3
...have the choice to drive through Confusion, but it obligated to stop and have a new hitch mounted on for safety, or drive around Confusion. The federal government has not made any effort to regulate the truck hitches used on the nation’s highways and make it mandatory. Tanya Trucker, who owns a trucking company in the State of Denial, is extremely upset about the additional expense and costs this statute inflicts on her business. Tanya is losing money due to the new regulation. Therefore, she intends to file a suit against Confusion to overturn the act. The court that will have jurisdiction over Tanya is the federal court because the Confusion State has violated the commerce clause of the constitution. The commerce clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. “The commerce clause gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce “(Cheeseman, 2010, p.73). The federal district court also has jurisdiction over citizenship lawsuits. According to Cheeseman, “A case may be brought in federal court if there is diversity of citizenship. Diversity of citizenship occurs if a lawsuit involves citizens from different states” (p.41, 2010). The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Because this clause authorizes the federal government to regulate commerce, it has a greater impact on business than does any other provision in the Constitution. The rules that the State of Confusion is implementing...
Words: 880 - Pages: 4
...over Tanya’s suit and the reasons. Whether the Confusion statute is constitutional or not is also a big question to challenge the legal reasoning. Especially to determine the validity of the statue, the application of what provisions of the U.S. Constitution should be utilized properly, and the possibility for Tanya to prevail on her suit is encountering with all the legal reasoning as well. The court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit and the reasons This is the case involving the diversity of citizenship between the state of Confusion and the citizen of the state of Denial; therefore, the court that should have jurisdiction over the lawsuit is the federal District Court in the sate of Confusion where the statute enacted. If there is diversity of citizenship, federal court may be chosen to have jurisdiction (Cheeseman, 2010). Apparently, the federal government has never regulated the truck hitches used on the nation’s highways. As a result, the case involves federal questions arising under the U.S Constitution, treaties, and federal statue and regulation. Legal reasoning for the Confusion statue to be constitutional According to the Commerce Clause, Congress constitutionally regulates commerce among the several states to enhance a national market...
Words: 1012 - Pages: 5
...The CSA permits the U.S. Attorney General to regulate the controlled substances prescribing practices and to refuse, disallow, or revoke a physician’s registration with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) if such registration is “inconsistent with public interest”. In 2001, then U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft argued that he had constitutional jurisdiction to determine what constitutes the licit practice of schedule II substances regulated under the federal CSA. Ashcroft reversed the findings and issued a ruling to stop the method of physician assisted suicide (PSA). The Interpretive Rule or better known as the “Ashcroft Directive” stated that providing a controlled substance for PSA is not a “legitimate medical purpose”. Under Ashcroft, doctors risked sacrificing the ability to prescribe medications if he/she chose to provide aid-in dying under the ODWDA. Physicians found to be offenders faced civil and sometimes criminal sanctions. The day after the directive was issued, the State of Oregon, along with pharmacists, physicians and the...
Words: 951 - Pages: 4
...1) Marijuana was legalized by voters through citizen initiatives. The method of ballot initiative through special interest groups was most likely used due to little support from state legislators. Only twenty-six states, and Washington D.C. implement initiative rights to citizens. Some believe initiative rights, which reflect a direct democracy, threaten our representative system. 2) The federal government regulates the use of controlled substances through The Controlled Substances Act. In the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005), The Supreme Court interpreted that under The Commerce Clause the federal government has authority to prohibit marijuana for all purposes. As stated in The Supremacy Clause of the constitution, the framers intended for...
Words: 351 - Pages: 2
...Heather Norton State of Confusion University of Phoenix BUS/415 Leah M. Peer May 17, 2011 When a state enacts a law it is enforceable and any person who enters that state is responsible to abide by that law. If all transportation departments had fair, clear, and consistent rules and procedures for how out-of-state violations should impact home-state license privileges – and those agencies took responsibility for treating motorists fairly when problems arise (National Motorists Association, 2011). The State of Confusion requires Tanya Trucker and any other trucker to use a specific trailer hitch, when they drive through the state. Tanya Trucker is the owner of a trucking company, and she is upset that the Federal Government has not made any attempts to regulate the truck hitches used in the nation’s highways. In this paper the subject to analyze and determine what court has jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit, is the Confusion statue constitutional, the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that will be applied by a court to determine validity of the statue, is Tanya likely to prevail on her suit, and stages of a civil suit. The State of Confusion enacted a ruling requiring all truck and towing trailers that use Highways in confusion are required to use a B-type trailer hitch. This specific hitch is only produced by one manufacturer based in Confusion. This regulation states truck drivers need to attach the B-type hitch on their truck or they will be forced to...
Words: 1314 - Pages: 6
...Of New Jersey Dr. Laura Sanders 9/29/30 A National Dispute In the past decade there has been an increased controversial view of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. People have been divided on how to regulate these products in the market, causing much governmental controversy. There have been many groundbreaking and unprecedented court cases that have been shaping the public policy on which these substances stand on. These substances have an immediate and perilous effect on the health of all human beings. Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, alcohol causes impaired judgment and in turn causes people to do things that affect their health physically and emotionally, and marijuana has almost the same effect as alcohol. (New England Law) Health is the ultimate concern when studying these three substances, which would lead to the Family Smoking Prevention Act to survive the Hudson Test. The Granholm case would lead one to believe that states cannot discriminate against outsiders from sales, and the medical exceptions for marijuana are valid on the fact that it has a medical advantage to some citizens. I strongly believe that the federal government has a right to regulate certain aspects of these substances based upon the danger posed to the health of citizens. This paper will discuss certain court cases that shape my opinion for every substance. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service...
Words: 3410 - Pages: 14
...Ryan Stiskin APUSH Period 3 11/23/14 Mr.Polanis DBQ Accuracy of Political Beliefs The two main parties during the early 1800s included the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans. The difference between the two parties was their choice of how the constitution should be interpreted. The Federalists followed a “loose” interpretation of the constitution, while the Jeffersonians followed a “strict” interpretation of the constitution. The Federalists and Jeffersonians each had their own interpretation of the constitution but were not always adamant in following it. The Jeffersonian Republicans were seen as “strict” constructionists and believed the constitution should be interpreted exactly as its written. The Jeffersonians wanted to...
Words: 526 - Pages: 3
...Video Games and Regulating Them 1. Whose place is it to deal with this problem? A. Parents or guardians B. Government C. Other Authority Figures 2. Should the government regulate violent video games? A. Job of the Government B. Create an agency to regulate games C. Laws and forms of regulating sale of violent games 3. Who is ultimately responsible? A. Creators of the games B. Marketing of the games C. Access to the games 4. Conclusion A. Summary of items discussed throughout the paper. Video Games and Regulating Them Whose problem is it to deal with this problem? This question is one that many people have differences on, and whatever one’s beliefs on who should regulate this matter both have valid arguments. When first being given this matter to address, it seemed a bit silly but after looking into how these games is played by so many young people I realized how important this issue is. The people whom I believe carry the most responsibility is ultimately the parents, these are the people that have the biggest impact on these young people. When parents choose to deflect the responsibility of this matter they are doing their child an injustice, furthermore parents should take an active role in teaching their children the difference between right and wrong. Ideas of regulating this issue by utilizing the federal and state governments are what I believe to be a waste of resources. In a child’s life there are many people that have a profound impact...
Words: 698 - Pages: 3
...Question One: the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden Daniel Webster who represented Gibbons argued that Congress if they really wanted to could make legislation to regulate transportation and water ways. He said that Congress power over commerce were very broad and exclusive to Congress. The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” They could regulate state monopolies, not prohibit which would make an even playing field for everyone. What that meant was the control was back in state hands and an override of statutes the conflicted with each other. States would have control over laws regarding health, safety and other public issues and laws regarding interstate but this represented states power within the federal system. Not federal power. Congress legislation would not interfere with this if legislations were enacted on a federal level. Lawyers for the state argued that if the court ruled in favor of Gibbons it would harm the internal state regulation of slave trade or abolish it altogether. Supporters, many business owners hoped for a decision that would support the power of Congress to get rid of state supported and controlled by a few rich...
Words: 1900 - Pages: 8
