...The Commerce Clause: Protector of Trade or Tool for Expanding Government Power? Ever since its inclusion in the Constitution, the Commerce Clause, along with the Necessary and Proper clause, has been a source of debate and contention. Indeed, there were over 1400 cases filed with the Supreme Court challenging its application before the 20th century alone. With the passage of the controversial Affordable Care Act, the Commerce Clause was brought once more to the forefront of national attention. The Obama administration, and other prominent voices on the Left, claim that the clause itself gave them broad powers of control and regulation. Those on the Right claim that the clause was put into place specifically to limit the influence of the Federal government on the power of trade between the states. The question is clear: does the Commerce Clause truly grant unlimited power to expand the Federal government through regulation, or has it been abused by those in the Federal government off and on since its inception? I will attempt to answer this question by examining first the Clause itself, the Federalist Paper written by James Madison (the father of the Commerce Clause) and then the Supreme Court cases which have called it into question. Let us begin by examining the wording of the Commerce Clause (along with the Necessary and Proper clause) itself: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the...
Words: 1984 - Pages: 8
...State of Confusion BUS415 State of Confusion Paper Jurisdiction The jurisdiction that holds the suit Tanya 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...
Words: 1558 - Pages: 7
...State of Confusion Paper State of Confusion Paper The state of Confusion requires B-type truck hitches to be used by towing trailers and trucks on its highways. According to the statute, truckers who drive through Confusion must stop and have the b-type hitch installed, or drive around the state altogether (University of Phoenix, 2009). Tanya trucker, owner of a trucking company in the state of Denial, is unhappy with this requirement because the hitch is produced solely in Confusion and because of the additional expense her business acquires because of the statute. Tanya plans to file suit to overturn Confusion’s statute and should review certain aspects of the situation that can add validity to her suit. She must determine what court will have jurisdiction over her suit and if Confusion’s statute is constitutional based on legal reasoning (University of Phoenix, 2009). Tanya should also determine which provisions of the United States Constitution will influence the validity of the statute. After the preceding information is reviewed, an illustration of the stages involved in a civil suit will aid Tanya in making a decision on filing suit against the state of Confusion (University of Phoenix, 2009). Jurisdiction of Suit Tanya Trucker’s suit would involve both the state of Confusion and the state of Denial, which brings about the question of jurisdiction. Confusion would be the defendant and Denial would be represented by Tanya’s trucking company. In instances such as this...
Words: 1664 - Pages: 7
...business is unnecessary and frivolous. She intends to file suit against Confusion to overturn the statute. * Before Tanya files her law suit she needs some questions answered, such as which court will have jurisdiction over this case, is the statue constitutional, what provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by the courts to determine the statue’s validity, and finally the steps to filing a civil suit. I believe Tanya should file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of this law. She should file suit in the federal court in the state of Confusion since they would have the most knowledge of the reasoning and understand the subject matter the most. I do not believe this statute is constitutional. The Commerce Clause protects intra-state trade and this law would affect the free flow of trade among the states. * Since Tanya’s company is from the State of Denial where no such law exists it creates issues and added expense if she wishes to conduct business in the State of Confusion. Tanya would have added time, energy and costs in order to travel through this state. Assuming she has a large operation, the cost of installing these hitches on all of her trucks is unfair to her simply because of a state law. This law adversely affects free flow of trade among the...
Words: 1355 - Pages: 6
...legal residence in the State of Denial and owns a trucking company. The new statute in the State of Confusion affects Tanya’s business, so she is planning to file a suit. If Tanya Trucker is successful overturning this statute Tanya and other truck and trailer businesses will be able to eliminate the extra operational cost. In the case against the State of Confusion, according to USLegal (2010), “if diversity of citizenship exists, it places the case under federal court jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution” (Diversity of Citizenship Law & Legal Definition, para. 1). The safety concern and reasons for implementing the statute in the State of Confusion are questionable because no other state has implemented similar statutes. According to Cheeseman (2010), “the commerce clause grants the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce” (p. 73); hence, pass laws that regulate the behavior of...
Words: 1464 - Pages: 6
...The State of Confusion BUS 415 The State of Confusion Many truck drivers travel through the State of Confusion in order to get to a destination. Recently, this state passed a statute which requires all trucks and towing trailers that use the state of confusion’s highways to use only a B-Type hitch. Therefore, every truck driver traveling through this state is required install a B-Type hitch. The manufacturer of this hitch is located in the State of Confusion. Tanya Trucker is an owner of an out of state trucking. Tanya is frustrated because the federal government has not intervened with this matter and because of this Tanya wants to pursue legal action against this state to end this hitch dilemma and overturn the stature and eliminate the added expenses her company is incurring. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with every decision making. It is imperative to apply critical thinking to discern the true impact of the environment on an individual, social and global level will help people understand how to become responsible decision makers. In preparation to pursue the suit, Tanya must know which court will have the jurisdiction over the case. If the case is strong enough she can file at the civil division of the state trial courts. The general jurisdiction trial courts would first listen to the testimony and look for any evidence presented that can determine the strength and if the case rejects, she can seek an appeal...
Words: 1061 - Pages: 5
...the statutes grounds, also whether the Confusion statute is constitutional, and to see if Tanya is destined to prevail on her lawsuit. Court Jurisdiction Tanya lives in the state of Denial and is placing an appeal against the state of Confusion. The federal government has the right to attest safety obligations for vehicles, which also include trucks. For the simple fact that Tanya proceed with the federally direct rules and obligations, Tanya’s business can now have permission to travel on the interstate in the state of Confusion. Tanya Trucker could file a claim in a federal court based on an unconstitutional restraint on trade or violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause, Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, grants Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Lawnix, n.d.). According to The Legal Information Institute (n.d.), The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the...
Words: 699 - Pages: 3
...In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones. The case arose out of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." Alfonso Lopez Jr., a high school senior, was convicted in a federal district court for knowingly possessing a concealed handgun and bullets at his San Antonio high school. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ruling that the law was beyond the reach of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1994. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and released in 1995, ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional and overturned Lopez's conviction. The Court ruled that the act exceeded the limited powers of Congress under the Constitution, rejecting the government's argument that the act was constitutional because the buying and selling of guns and associated illicit activities affect "interstate commerce," which Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause. The government claimed that gun violence in schools leads to both more dangerous and thus less commercially healthy neighborhoods and less...
Words: 604 - Pages: 3
...jurisdiction over this case because Tanya Trucker leaves in the State of Denial, and her suit will be against the State of Confusion. Cheeseman (2010) stated “A case may be brought in federal court if there is diversity of citizenship” (p. 41). Because this case will have a federal question because Tanya Trucker could file her lawsuit against the State of Confusion for violating the commerce clause under the U.S. Constitution. Cheeseman (2010) stated “The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the authority to regulate the interstate commerce.” The U.S. Supreme Court has handled numerous case, but one particular case is the Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 65 S. Ct. 1515, 89 L. Ed. 1915 (1945), this case was about an Arizona statute that prohibited railroads with more than 70 freight cars to travel within the state (“The Free Dictionary by Farlex,” 2012). This law was found to be a violation of the Commerce Clause, despite of the fact that it treated intrastate and interstate commerce equally to the point that when put into operation the law hindered interstate commerce as there was difficulties faced by the train if it followed the state law. Similarly a statute was endorsed by the State of Confusion, recommending the use...
Words: 1260 - Pages: 6
...Business Law BUS/415 Charles Ellison June 30, 2012 State of Confusion The state of Confusion is requiring that all truck drivers that drive through their state have a specific B-type hitch on their trailers. If they do not have these hitches they are required to drive around the state of Confusion. However, the only manufacturer of these hitches is also located in Confusion as well. Tanya Trucker is from the state of Denial and plans to bring a lawsuit to remove this restriction on the grounds that this statute is unconstitutional. Tanya truck would have to file the suit within the state of Confusion at the Federal Court because this is where the restriction is being imposed but the federal government is who overseas interstate commerce. Other reasons are due to the fact that the hitch restriction is in this state and the federal government has not made any regulations themselves that require this hitch. Also, the state of Denial has no jurisdiction over the state of Confusion. This statute is not constitutional on the grounds that it is extremely restrictive. A truck cannot be expected to purchase this hitch when the only place to get it is in the state of Confusion. There is no way to drive into the state without first violating their statute to begin with because that is the only place they can first purchase the hitch. Also this standard is only set in one state and is not required in any other states. On the other hand, each state is given the right to govern the...
Words: 731 - Pages: 3
...State of Confusion Scenario: 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 manufactured by only one manufacturer in Confusion. The result of this statute is that any trucker who wants to drive through Confusion must stop and have the new hitch installed, or drive around Confusion. The federal government has not made any attempt to regulate the truck hitches used on the nation’s highways. (University of Phoenix, 2010) Tanya Trucker intends to file suit against the state of Confusion because of the enacted statute that requires all trucks and towing trailers to use the specific truck hitch while in Confusion. Tanya will file a civil case against the state of Confusion, as this statute adversely affects Tanya’s business profits. Tanya hopes to overturn the statute in this suit against the state. Overturning this statute will allow Tanya’s business and other truck and trailer businesses to eliminate this extra expense. We will examine the list of stages in a civil suit, to determine which court has jurisdiction, and explore whether or not the Confusion statute is constitutional. To begin the stages of a civil case, Tanya must find an attorney who can represent her, then gather the finances to pay the attorney’s fees. With the help of an attorney, Tanya will be able to take the first step of the civil suit. Below is a list of the seven stages of a civil case and a brief...
Words: 1442 - Pages: 6
...their different state laws in rear-fender mudguards, in Georgia, its state government enact the law that all the trucks must install contoured rear-fender mudguard in state lines, in contract, Florida state government regulate its trucks and trailers must use straight mudguards. Concerning to whether Georgia statue violates the commerce clause of the U.S, Georgia state government does not violate the commerce clause because of police power, states possess the power to regulate private activities in order to protect or promote public order, health, safety, morals, and general welfare. On the other hand, based on the meaning of the dormant commerce clause, when state regulations impinge on interstate commerce, courts must balance the state’s interest in the merits and purposes of the regulation against the burden that the regulation places on interstate commerce, congress court could intervene laws enacted by state governments. Drivers have to stop by roads to change their mudguards, which is not only time consuming but also expenses expensing. In this case, the regulation is an “undue burden” on interstate commerce. In terms of the Supremacy Clause, there are three aspects to prevent it from any other challenges. 1. Preemption: federal laws is said to preempt a conflicting state or local laws. 2. federal law is pervasive, comprehensive, or detailed that it leaves state and local law no room to supplement it 3. Federal laws create a federal regulatory agency that...
Words: 258 - Pages: 2
...that interstate trucking is a huge and profitable business, and could possibly inflict an economic hardship not just on her company in Denial, but on many others trucking companies that want to go though the State of Confusion, but can’t because the manufacture of the (B-Type) truck hitch is only located in the state of Confusion. Therefore, Tanya Trucker has decided to file a lawsuit against the State of Confusion. She feels that the statue is unconstitutional, and may cause problems not just for her living in Denial, but for other out of state truck drivers as well. With Tanya Trucker living in the State of Denial, she could file her law-suit in Federal Court. According to the text, The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce, Sixth Edition, “If there is diversity in citizenship, than a case may be brought in federal court if a lawsuit involves citizens of different states, or a citizen of a state and a citizen or subject of a foreign...
Words: 1012 - Pages: 5
...would have to purchase these hitches to go through this one state or go around the state of Confusion. 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...
Words: 1490 - Pages: 6
...(See page 23.) * According to our textbook, Due Process is related to both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments providing that no person shall be deprived “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Therefore, in this situation, due process requires the governmental decision to take those (life, liberty, or property) fairly. * 1–7 The Dormant Commerce Clause. In 2001, Puerto Rico enacted a law that requires specific labels on cement sold in Puerto Rico and imposes fines for any violations of these requirements. The law prohibits the sale or distribution of cement manufactured outside Puerto Rico that does not carry a required label warning that the cement may not be used in government-financed construction projects. Antilles Cement Corp., a Puerto Rican firm that imports foreign cement, filed a complaint in federal court, claiming that this law violated the dormant commerce clause. (The dormant commerce clause doctrine applies not only to commerce among the states and U.S. territories, but also to international commerce.) Did the 2001 Puerto Rican law violate the dormant commerce clause? Why or why not? [Antilles Cement Corp. v. Fortuno, 670 F.3d 310 (1st Cir. 2012)] (See page 14.) * In my opinion, 2001 Puerto Rican law violated the...
Words: 321 - Pages: 2
