Running Head: GREATER FINANCIAL MEANS

An Unconstitutional Way to Greater Financial Means?
Chiquita M. Quintor
University of Phoenix

Unconstitutional Ways to Greater Financial Means?
There are many states that use the statues to regulate different sectors such as parks and recreation to roadways. The state of Confusion has enacted a statue that mandates all towing vehicles to use a B-type truck hitch. Numerous truckers feel Confusion is commanding an unfair expense. Tanya Trucker, who owns a trucking business in the state of Denial is filing a suit against Confusion to overturn the statue.
Court with Jurisdiction
The court that will have jurisdiction over Tanya Trucker’s suit is the federal jurisdiction. The Lectric Law Library states that, “The federal courts also may decide cases for which state courts are inappropriate or might be suspected of partiality. Thus, federal courts may decide, in the language of the Constitution, controversies between two or more states and between a State and Citizen of another State (Lectric Law Library, 2010). Even though this is a state statue, the federal jurisdiction will still have the power to decide if it is valid or not.
Confusion Statute Constitutional
Under the meaning of Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit concerns a “case of controversy.” Even though states have the power to set their own statues, some of them can cause concern and have to be reviewed by higher courts. The state of Confusion is using the simple fact that the trucks have to drive through their state and are gaining from them financially. They are not requiring the B-type hitch to protect the roadways and are solely requiring the hitch to produce extra income. Therefore, the Confusion statute is unconstitutional.
What provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied
In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the