Bus 415 Week #2

Bobby Arroyo
BUS 415 Week 2
Individual Assignment – State of Confusion Paper

University of Phoenix

October 31, 2011

State of Confusion

The answer to the question about what court will have jurisdiction power over Tanya's suit could be formulated as stated: It is the federal law who takes superiority and takes charge of any conflicts that happen within the state and locally (Cheeseman, 2010). With this, it is therefore the federal law that will take care of Tanya’s suit. However, a statement from the same case also affirms that if the claimant is bringing an existing case to the jurisdiction in state court, the defendant may opt to bring the case to the state court to decide, or may pull it out from the federal court. If a certain case is no longer appropriate to be sent to the federal court, it is then only proper to bring it to the right state court.

It would be irrational and pointless for Tanya to file a suit inside the state that has passed this statute, if it is in fact the state of Confusion that put up the statute that requires the use of B-type truck hitch by all towing trailers and trucks that use the state roads. The state itself enacted that law, so there is really no way for just one person make the state take back that law. The only way for it to be gone is if they are already forced by the government to do so. Unless that happens, then the statue will still remain implemented. Therefore, in this case, both the federal law and state court have the power of jurisdiction. However, it is safer for Tanya to file it in the federal law, because the state implemented the statute for their advantage in the first place.

To determine if the state of confusion is really constitutional, we will be guided by a similar case, which is the Rowe, Attorney General of Maine v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (Supreme Court of the United States, 2007). Based on this case the Confusion statute is not constitutional. In the mentioned case,...