This paper will be reviewing the case brought upon the state of Confusion by Tanya Trucker, who owns a trucking company in the state of Denial. The state of Confusion has enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers who use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. The problem is that Tanya Trucker 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 includes trucks. Where Tanya Trucker followed all other federally regulated