The ruling by the state of confusion enacting new rules for the trucks and towing trailers that ply on the confusion highway has generated a lot of heat from the track company owners. The statute enforces the use of a B-type truck hitch whose manufacturers are only found in state of confusion alone. Tanya a truck company owner decides to go to court to petition against the enacted statute, the court has a jurisdiction over the case because the federal government has not enacted any law to regulate the truck hitches and make it compulsory for the truck owners. Therefore, the federal district court will listen to Tanya’s suit since it is mandated to handle interstate commerce. In addition, the federal district court has also jurisdiction over other lawsuits that are brought forward by individuals from different states, as is the case with Tanya who does not come from the state of confusion.
The federal government has the legal power to regulate commerce all over the nation, which is enacted in the commerce clause. Therefore, the state of confusion act requiring trucks and towing trailers to use B-type truck hitches has generated a lot of opposition that could derail the economic activity of the state thus it concerns the interstate commerce. Therefore, Tanya’s suit has a valid case against the state for violating the clause of the constitution provision on commerce.
The constitutionality of this enacted law by the state of confusion is invalid. This is because the commerce clause is not active and the federal government has not enforced the use of the truck hitches on the highways in the whole country. However, the statute could be constitutional if it only affects the state of confusion alone, but in this case the highway is used by the interstate trucks, thus according to cheeseman , the state and other local laws are not allowed to put much pressure on the interstate commerce. Additionally, there is only one manufacturer of the hitch and is found in the state of confusion alone , thus this law raises many questions than answers ,therefore the Antitrust provisions has been violated due to monopolistic nature of the manufacturer because it does not open field for fair competition with other type of hitches manufacturing companies. According to Cheesema, monopoly is unconstitutional because it hinders interstate commerce.
On the other hand, since the federal government has the power to regulate and enact safety measure, and it has failed to do so, then it is constitutional for the state of confusion to enact the statute by enforcing it citing it as a dominant commerce clause that has been ignored. However, this clause as stated before, can only be enacted in the state of confusion, nevertheless; in this case, the statute is enacted, which affects the interstate commerce thus making it unconstitutional.
The united states constitution provisions on the commerce clause according to Cheeseman indicates in the article 1,section 9 that there should be no preference given or enacted through any regulation of commerce or enforce laws that is not in line with other states or the federal government. In addition, it is the mandate of the federal government to come up with laws that regulate and create safety measures for the use of highways in the whole country. Therefore, the state of confusion has no legal authority to enforce any safety requirement for vehicles plying on their state roads. In this regard, the possibility of Tanya winning this case is 50 /50 considering that the state of confusion may decide to defend it self by stating that the statute was enacted to enhance safety measures that the federal government is reluctant to implement and that there was no need for the engaging in the alternative disputes.
Since the case is handled by the federal district court of the confusion state, the resolutions made may not provide amicable results for either. Thus, the aggrieved party may opt to appeal to the United Sates court of appeal that is likely to give the final verdict of the case. In light of the controversies that arise from the perceived violation of the constitution by the confusion state, the court of appeal my rule in the favor of Tanya by scraping the statute. The court may then directing the federal government to come up with amicable solution to the safety issue and enact safety measures that is acceptable and has no shortcomings as the one enacted by the state of confusion.