Confusion

This paper will analyze the case scenario of Tanya Trucker v. Confusion, the objectives are to establish jurisdiction of the case, discuss legalities of the Constitutional statutes involved, detail the stages in a civil lawsuit, and finally will discuss my rationale as well as my insight of the likelihood of prevailing in the case.
    This case involving Tanya Trucker and the state of Confusion encompasses a statute enacted by the state of Confusion that requires all trucks and towing   trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch, the hitch is manufactured only in Confusion. Additionally, the federal government has not made any attempts to regulate truck hitches used on America’s interstate highways (University of Phoenix, BUS/415 Syllabus, 2010).
    This business law case scenario of Tanya Trucker v. Confusion will be heard in the Federal Court System , specifically the U.S. District Court, with any appeals heard in the nearest U.S. Court of Appeals. Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution allows federal courts to hear federal question cases that arise under the U.S. Constitution (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 41). This case involves the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution that Cheeseman (2010) states, “grants Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes” (p. 71). More specifically, the federal government can regulate activities that affect interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. Additionally, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, states and local laws cannot unduly burden interstate commerce (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 73).  
      In this case scenario, the state of Confusion has enacted a statute requiring a towing trailer or
truck to have a B-type hitch installed to travel their interstate highways. This violates the
interstate commerce act. When the state of Confusion enacted this statute it was not
unconstitutional until the affects of it caused... [continues]

Read full essay