State of Confusion

State of Confusion

Briana Enlow

Judge Arthur Anderson

November 2, 2010

BUS/415

State of Confusion

In this scenario, the state of Confusion passed a law that requires all trucks and towing trailers that use Confusion highways to use a B-type truck hitch. The hitch is made by one company in Confusion, and any trucker who wants to drive through the state of Confusion has to stop and have the B-type hitch installed or they would have to 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, contends that the additional expense this statute imposes on her business is unnecessary and frivolous. She intends to file suit against Confusion to overturn the statute. Before Tanya files suit she needs some questions answered, such as which court will have jurisdiction over this case, is the statue constitutional, what provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by the courts to determine the statue’s validity, and finally the steps to filing a civil suit.

Because the state of Confusion enacted this law requiring all trucks to use the B-type hitch, it is more than likely that they will not budge in changing the law, especially if one looked at the fact that Tanya is currently the only company with a complainant. The state passed this law, and the only way for that to change at this point is for the federal government to retract the law, otherwise the law will remain. To address the first question, Tanya would file suit in federal court as a violation of the commerce clause of the constitution. The commerce clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.

The statute may seem frivolous or unfair but that doesn’t hold up...