Each state has the mandate of enacting statutes that govern the day-to-day activities of the state. Time and again laws are enacted which in one way or the other seem to hinder the normal operations of business among states.
Though the federal government is expected to regulate how states conduct their affairs, situations have been reported where a less popular statute among residents and other stake holders has been enacted. The state of confusion’s statute that requires all trucks using its highways to have a specific type of truck hitch (Cheeseman, 2010), which apparently is manufactured by only firm, is one such example.
This law affects interstate commerce which is against the constitution. However, only specific courts have jurisdiction over matters like this. Moreover, the Constitution must be applied in determining whether the state is legal or not, and if the complainant can win the case. Furthermore, being a civil matter, the case will to go through specific stages.
Each state is allowed by the tenth amendment of the constitution to fully regulate commerce within its boundaries. However, the Congress is supposed to oversee all activities associated with interstate commerce as well as foreign trade (Hayek, 2011).
The statute enacted by Confusion affects business processes not only in confusion but among other states too. Therefore, this is a federal matter that can only be tackled by the federal courts, because it involves a suit regarding the application of the Constitution (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009). As a result, jurisdiction of such matters lies with the federal district courts.
It should be noted that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution limits any state from implementing or enacting laws that would affect interstate commerce. Failure of the federal government to enact laws that contain certain issues does not expressly give states the powers to enact the needed laws (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009).
Whether statutes enacted by any state are non-discriminatory or not, provided they in any way burden free flow of trade among states they are considered unconstitutional. In the case of Pacific Co. v Arizona, 325 U. S. 761 (1945), the court held that the statute forbidding trains with more than 70 freight cars from crossing the state was unconstitutional (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009).
Despite the fact that the statute was applied homogeneously, it was found to hinder free flow of trains through the state. The State of Confusion has regulated that all trucks must be fixed with B-type hitches to access their highways. The statute limits free movement of trucks through Confusion, thus hindering free flow of trade (Cheeseman, 2010). Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional and as a result the State of Confusion is not legally correct to enact the statute.
In addressing this matter there are various provisions of the Constitution that can be applied. To begin with, the Commerce Clause that prohibits states from enacting statutes which interfere with interstate commerce will have to be applied. This is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Clause gives powers specifically to the Congress as regards the regulation of interstate commerce (Hayek, 2011). The Congress is expected to ensure that artificial obstacles that might hinder free business among states are eliminated. In a situation where it becomes important for legislation to be enacted to regulate any aspect of interstate commerce, the Congress will do so (Cheeseman, 2010).
However, for this to be done the subject matter must be of national importance and the Congress, with the help of the courts, will determine that. On the same note, the Congress should balance the national interests and that of the specific state before coming up with any legislation. On the other hand, the tenth Amendment to the Constitution is vital in this matter. This will clarify what can be done and what cannot be done by a state (Cheeseman, 2010).
In this matter, Tanya will have a strong case because the State of Confusion has gone against the Constitution. The fact that trucks find it very difficult when traveling through the state is evidence enough that the statute is interfering with the free flow of trade among states. Due to the requirement, trucks have to wait in the State of Confusion for the hitches to be fixed. Besides wasting time and compelling truck operators to spend extra money, the statute places specification on where the hitches are to be bought.
Various steps can be followed when one is reporting a civil case. The first step is filling of the complaint by the complainant, who will have to state the nature of the problem. Thereafter, the defendant is informed that a complaint has been made against some actions that he or she might have taken (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009).
On the same note, it is at this stage that defendants are informed which provisions of the law they have contravened. It should be noted that the defendant has a right to contest the complaint on the basis of the elements of the complaint. If the complaint is not specific on the cause of action against the defendant, it can also be contested (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009).
Similarly, the defendant can argue against the complaint if the complainant uses language that seems to be frolicsome. The court will then consider the issues raised and decide whether the defendant has substantial reasons to contest or not. However, the complainant can be allowed to amend the complaint and file it again, incase the contests raised by the defendant are sustained (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009).
The next step involves collection of evidence by both parties to determine how much evidence is available for the case. At this point, each side of the case is allowed to see the evidence of the other party and ask questions if necessary, either orally or in writing. Since defendants usually look for loopholes in complainants’ evidence, many file an application for summary judgment after evidence discovery.
However, for summary judgment to be upheld, the defendant must proof that the evidence produced by the complainant cannot support the case. If the defendant is able to push through with the case, an arbitrator is invited to try and solve the problem without necessarily going for trial (Hayek, 2011).
Though some cases are solved at the settlement conference, some are not. The court is then compelled to take the matter for trial when an arbitrator is unable to solve it.
The court will then listen to both sides of the case and deliver a ruling depending on the evidence presented, and the provisions of the Constitution (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009). Nevertheless, it is not always that all parties agree to the ruling delivered. Under circumstances where one party disagrees with the ruling, the unsatisfied party can file an appeal in the higher courts (Cheeseman, 2010).
References
Cheeseman, H. P. (2010). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce: Business Ethics, E-Commerce, Regulatory, and International Issues. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hayek, F. A. (2011). The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Neubauer, D. W., & Meinhold, S. S. (2009). Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States. Stanford: Cengage Learning.