logo
   
    Password reminder
To register place your 1st order
 

Welcome!

Unlike most writing services, MarvelousEssays.com provides original, custom-written papers only

order telephone

   

State of Confusion

← Amazon.com Joint Ventures →

Buy custom State of Confusion essay

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.

Buy custom State of Confusion essay

Related essays

  1. Joint Ventures
  2. Business, Society and Ethics; Coffee Growing and Fair Trade
  3. Amazon.com
  4. Business Ethics: Employee Surveillance
order now
 

Get 15% off your first custom essay order.

Order now

PRICES
from $12.99/PAGE
X