STATE OF CONFUSION PAPER

State Of Confusion Paper

State Of Confusion Paper

Tanya Tucker owns a trucking company in the state of Denial. She is extremely frustrated because of the statute that is in place in the state of Confusion. The state of confusion enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. This hitch is made by only one manufacturer located in the State of Confusion. Tanya's truck drivers are facing issues when they drive through the state of Confusion because they do not have the required hitch. Tanya also does not want all of the additional expense in purchasing these hitches so her truckers can drive through the state of Confusion. The federal government has not made any attempt to regulate the truck hitches used on the nation's highways so this is an interesting case as Tanya is prepared to file a civil lawsuit.

What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya's suit and why?

According to the United States Constitution, this particular case would fall into a federal court type of system. Another interesting fact with this is that the state of Confusion is the only state that is trying to force this type of statute. If there were interstate type statutes like this one, the case could potentially fall in to the Supreme Court's lap at some point too. As for now, this case will most likely be heard by the United States district Court along with the United States Appellate Court when the appeals are taking place.

Is the Confusion statute constitutional and what provisions of the United States Constitution will be applied?

The statute in the state of Confusion is most likely unconstitutional due to the Dormant Commerce Clause which is a clause located in the Unites States Constitution. This clause means that Congress has been given power over interstate commerce, and states cannot discriminate against interstate commerce nor can they unduly burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of federal legislation regulating the activity (National Paralegal 2003 - 2007).

Additionally, any state law which affects interstate commerce must be rationally related to a legitimate state concern and the burden on interstate commerce must be outweighed by the benefit to the state's interest. In this case, a court must examine whether the state objective could be achieved by a means less restrictive on interstate commerce. It is also important to note that promoting the economic interest of the state of Confusion's citizens at the expense of out-of-state business and/or citizens is not really a legitimate state objective.

The state of Confusion has placed a burden on trucks and trailers which pass through the state for personal or business purposes. The Dormant Commerce Clause will be a good argument for the plaintiff (Tanya Tucker) in this case. States need to be “fair” when they are initiating and implementing new statutes. Requiring all trucks to have this one particular hitch that is made within this one state only seems ...