Tanya Trucker And Confusion Tanya Trucker And Essay

Tanya Trucker and Confusion Tanya Trucker and the State of Confusion

In the State of Confusion, trucks that travel through must use a B-type hitch on all trucks and towing trailers, however, Tanya Trucker, who lives in another state, Denial, but must have her trucks travel through Confusion, does not like the added expense the B-type hitch law requires. She wants to take the State of Confusion to court and challenge the law, especially since the federal government has made no such regulations involving the hitches on trucks. She feels that the extra regulation imposed by the State of Confusion is an undue burden on her business and wants the courts to stop Confusion from enforcing this law. There are many issues involved in this case, such as, the relationship between states and the federal government, which court will hear the case, is the regulation even Constitutional.

Since Tanya Trucker's business is in Denial, a different state than Confusion, in this particular case interstate commerce is being effected. Since there are two different states involved in the case, a trucking company in Denial, and the State of Confusion, this case may be taken to federal court. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases which involve interstate commerce, or trade and commerce between states. Confusion's B-type hitch law can be argued to interfere with commerce between states, as Tanya Trucker is an example. She lives in one state, while her business requires her to travel through both her state and at least one other, Confusion. Also the statute requiring B-type hitches within the state of Confusion, must be determined...

...

Only federal courts have the jurisdiction to decide whether or not a law is Constitutional.
The federal courts will have jurisdiction over the case brought by Tanya Trucker against the State of Confusion because it involves trade between states and it needs to be determined whether or not the statute is Constitutional. According to Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States…" (Constitution) Also when one takes into account the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, or Article VI, Clause 2, which asserts that "federal law, treaties, and the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the Land," (Carroll, 2011) This means that it is only the U.S. federal courts that can decide whether or not a law is acceptable in light of the U.S. Constitution. If Tanya Trucker claims that the State of Confusion's law is unconstitutional, then only federal courts can make that decision.

Tanya Trucker's claim that the state of Confusion's B-type truck hitch requirement has a great deal of merit and will most likely succeed in court. Since the federal government has made no attempt to regulate what kind of hitches are necessary on the highways of America, the State of Confusion is overstepping it's authority by imposing this regulation. When taking into account the fact that the only manufacturer of these B-type hitches resides inside Confusion, then it may be assumed that the State of Confusion is interfering in the commerce between states. While the state does have a duty to…

Sources Used in Documents:

References

Carroll, Michael. (2011). "The Supremacy Clause v. S.B. 1070..." Albany Government

Law Review. Retrieved from http://aglr.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/the-supremacy-clause-v-s-b-1070-can-arizona%E2%80%99s-strict-illegal-immigration-law-withstand-constitutional-challenge/

Radcliffe, Mark. Diane Brinson. "The U.S. Legal System." Findlaw.com. Retrieved from http://www.brainmass.com/homework-help/business/business-law/364932

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html


Cite this Document:

"Tanya Trucker And Confusion Tanya Trucker And" (2011, August 21) Retrieved April 19, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/tanya-trucker-and-confusion-tanya-trucker-51880

"Tanya Trucker And Confusion Tanya Trucker And" 21 August 2011. Web.19 April. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/tanya-trucker-and-confusion-tanya-trucker-51880>

"Tanya Trucker And Confusion Tanya Trucker And", 21 August 2011, Accessed.19 April. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/tanya-trucker-and-confusion-tanya-trucker-51880

Related Documents

Confusion Hypothetical: Can the State Enact a Statute Requiring a Specific Tow Hitch? Facts: Tanya Trucker is a trucking company owner who resides in and/or operates her business in the state of Denial. Her trucking business operates in the state of Confusion as well as other states. The state of Confusion enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch,

Confusion: Trailer Hitches Facts: The state of Confusion enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch, which is manufactured by only one manufacturer in confusion. As a result, truckers either have to avoid Confusion or have the hitch installed. The federal government has not attempted to regulate truck hitches on the nation's highways. Tanya Trucker, a trucking company owner

Although here, there are not any federal statutes in place regarding truck hitches, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the language of the Commerce Clause contains a further, negative command prohibiting certain state regulation even when Congress has failed to legislate on the subject. This is evident in Quill Corp v. North Dakota [504 U.S. 298 (1992)] in which the Supreme Court determined that a tax levied on

The discovery includes: depositions, answers to written interrogatories, production of documents and evidence, court-ordered examinations, and requests for admissions (Mann, R. & Roberts, B. 2009. p.53). The final step of the pretrial procedure is the pretrial conference between judge and the parties' attorneys which serves to "simplify the issues in dispute and encourage settlement of the dispute without trial" (Mann, R. & Roberts, B. 2009. p.53). Directly before a

However, where a state statute exerts control over matters capable of being regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause, those statutes are invalid because they conflict with a concept that is generally referred to as the "dormant Commerce Clause" (Dershowitz, 2002; Friedman, 2005). In modern application, federal courts apply a three-pronged test to determine whether or not a given state statute is invalid by virtue of a conflict with Congressional

Business Law The federal district court for the district in which the State of Confusion resides will have jurisdiction over the constitutionality of the B-Hitch Statute. The lawsuit by Tanya Trucker will be heard in federal court because the federal courts have jurisdiction over issues of federal questions. This suit concerns a matter for the federal courts because the issue is "whether a state statute which interferes with commerce in the