State of Confusion

State of Confusion
Wendy Smith
William Parks
September 7, 2010


In the case of Tanya Trucker v. State of Confusion the U.S. District Court should have jurisdiction over the suit. The case involving the State of Confusion which imposed a statute that required all trucks and towing trailers that passed through the state to install a B-type hitch that is only manufactured by a company operating in the State of Confusion. This statute conflicts with the Commerce Clause which regulates interstate commerce thus should be heard in the appropriate U.S. District Court.   U.S. District Courts hear cases involving federal questions and being that the statute interferes with the activities that affect interstate commerce that is federally regulated.
The Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, treaties, federal laws and federal regulations are the supreme law of the land (Cheeseman, 2010). State laws that conflict with valid federal laws are considered unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes. The Commerce Clause also gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This clause also allows the federal government to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce. Since the trucks would be passing through the State of Confusion it falls under interstate commerce regulation. The statute directly and substantially conflicts with the federal government’s authority to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce which makes the statute that the State of Confusion imposed is unconstitutional.
In the case Tanya Trucker v. The State of Confusion, the federal government has not made an attempt to regulate the hitches used on the nation’s highways. The State of Confusion will probably argue that under intrastate commerce they can regulate business activity that...