The State of Confusion

Tanya Trucker is owner of a trucking company that operates in the state of Denial. She decide to bring legal action against the state of Confusion for enacting a state regulation that require trucking companies to use only B-type truck hitches on all trucks and tower trailers that drive on its highways. The B-type truck hitch is manufactured by the only manufacturer in Confusion. The result of this statute is that any trucker who wants to drive through Confusion must discontinue their travel through Confusing and have the new B-type hitch installed, or drive around the town of Confusion. Tanya is upset about the additional expenses that affect her business expenses because she would be forced to buy these hitches for her company to travel through just one state or travel around the state of Confusion. Tanya decided to file suit and get the law statue reversed.

The Confusion statue is unconstitutional because it is attempting to create an artificial market and artificial demand. The statue has an effect on the unrestricted movement of commerce through the State of Confusion. It is clear that the purpose of the state of Confusion is to create a law for one manufacturer who has a desire to make money through an artificial market and artificial demand because the operation of the manufacturer is located being within the borders of the state of Confusions.

The Confusion statute is in violation of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). When combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), the Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate and oversee matters related to interstate commerce in the U.S. The Confusion statute interferes with Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce and should be struck down.

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states. When Congress judges an aspect of interstate commerce in need of supervision, it will enact legislation that has real and rational regulation. The nature of commerce must be examined to decide whether Congress has absolute control over it. If the regulation subject is national and requiring uniform regulation, the power of Congress has the exclusive power of regulation. The courts would adjudicate to determine the national or local character of the business regulation, by balancing the interests of the nation against those of the state. If the interests of the state are found to be of minor judgment in contrast with the interest of the nation, the courts would find the state statute to be unconstitutional because the statue is an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

The legal reason is centered on Confusion's violation of the U.S. Constitution, which the decision of the case should be decided at the level of the Supreme Court since anything related to Interstate Commerce is examined by the Supreme Court. Since Congress determination of the law enacted is to make money for the one manufacturer who operated within the state of Confusions borders, the provisions of the U.S. Constitution applies. The Supreme Court determined the statue's validity. The provisions of the U.S. Constitution decided at the level of the Supreme Court since it required examining the subject matter related to Interstate Commerce because the provisions of the U.S. Constitution in questions are assumed that the two states are equivalent in the United States. The statute of the law imposes a law statue, which causes unjustifiable adversity and expenditure upon trucks and towing trailers by its requirement of the hitch, and therefore, the statue adversely affects the free flow of trade that is safeguarded by the Commerce clause.

The ratification of the state regulation will be repeal since the requirement of trucking companies to use only B-type truck hitches on all trucks and tower trailers that drive on its highways is a strategy of the only manufacturer in the area to make money through an artificial market and artificial demand. The real reason for the repeal is based on the reasoning that the only way to get the specific hitch installed is to enter the state of Confusion and have the hitch installed by the only company that manufactures it there. The company manufacturer has a standing probability as a law for safety,