State of Confusion

Interstate trucking is a large and profitable business and in the State of Confusion , they have enacted a statue requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. Is this fair and constitutionally? Well one driver (Tanya Trucker) has taken issue with this statue and does not feel that it is fair that everytime her trucks have to travel through the State of Confusion they are required to have this special B-type trucking hitch. This paper will examine the law and how it relates to the legality and Constitution of the United States.

Although, this statue may impose a financial burden on the trucking companies who may want to pass through the State of Confusion, it is not unconstitutional. “States may have their own constitutions. These are often patterned after the U.S. Constitution, although many are more detailed. State constitutions establish the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of state government and establish the powers of each branch. Provisions of state constitutions are valid unless they conflict with the U.S. Constitution or any valid federal law.” (Cheeseman H. 2010).

So, because the federal government has not made any attempts to regulate the trucking hitches used on the nation’s highways, the State of Confusion is not in violation of federal, state or local laws. They have the right to impose this statue. Once again, it may not seem fair, because the only place that manufactures this hitch is in the State of Confusion. This statue seems as if there is a conflict of interest present.

No matter how one may think or feel the rules and laws should be when pertaining to the law, there are only the legal laws that have been made that governed how, when and where court decisions will be made.

In the case of Tanya Trucker, which is a civil case, the court that would have jurisdiction over her suit would be the Exclusive State Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the state courts extends...