State of Confusion

There are many reasons why the commerce clause exists. In the case of Tanya Trucker versus the State of Confusion it is clear that the commerce clause was written for scenarios like this. The State of Confusion enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. There is only one manufacturer for thus hitch in the State of Confusion. The result of this statute is that any trucker who wants to drive through Confusion must stop and have the new hitch installed, or drive around Confusion. The federal government has not made any attempt to regulate the truck hitches used on the nation’s highways. Tanya Trucker, who owns a trucking company in the state of Denial, is not happy about the additional expense this statute imposes on her business. She intends to file suit against Confusion to overturn the statute. This paper will discuss what court will have jurisdiction, if the statue is Constitutional or not and the reasons why Tanya will prevail in her suit.

Tanya Trucker currently resides in the state of Denial and will be filing her suit in the state of Confusion. Tanya should file her suit in federal court for the violation of the commerce clause of the constitution. “The commerce clause grants the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce” (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 73). Congress is empowered by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution to enact and regulate foreign and interstate commerce. The interstate commerce has the ability to pass laws that regulate the behaviors of business. In this case the federal court would have jurisdiction over this case.

Tanya will be able to show that 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...