Introduction
The State of Confusion implemented a current statute that restricted the trucks to using only one category of truck hitch known as the B-type. The manufacturer of this hitch is a monopolist; therefore, high chance of exploiting the clients. This statute requires those trucks wishing to drive across the Confusion state to install the new hitch. However, the federal government, which bears the directive of regulating the hitch to use on the highway, has not intervened in this case (Cheeseman, 2009).
Tanya Trucker is a distinguished businessperson in the field of transport as revealed by her ability to own and manage a massive trucking Company. Of profound significance is the fact that Tanya is a resident of the State of Denial. Mostly Tanya’s trucks ferry products to the State of Confusion, therefore, an augmentation in the current expenditure due to the statute that requires her to install the new hitch. Consequently, she finds it critical to file a suit aimed at overturning the statute. Therefore, this document endeavors to illuminate on a number of issues that are subject to consideration.
The Most Appropriate Court
The first part of the assignment needs the identification of the court that will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit, along with providing reasons that support it. The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution has incorporated the commerce clause in order to control interstate commerce. Such a clause is significant as it provides the rules and procedures to adhere to while conducting business both within and without the states. This indicates that such a clause is also applicable even with the involvement of some foreign nations. The Confusion’s decision to enact such a statute is an apparent breach of the commerce clause.
It will be advisable that Tanya presents her complaints into the court of law; therefore, confronting its constitutionality. As depicted by various sources, the “Federal District Court” (FDC) would be most suitable in offering jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit. The FDC’s designation allows it to participate in activities similar to Tanya’s case (Cheeseman, 2009). This is enough proof that such a court possesses much experience basic for ruling the case suitably. It also assumes the responsibility of directing the interstate commerce that is normally under the Federal government. The main role of interstate commerce is minimizing those barriers experienced when conducting business. Therefore, the category in charge of interstate commerce will need to intervene in offering a sustainable solution.
The Constitutionality of the Statute
Apparently, the Confusion State’s statute is not constitutional as indicated by the US Constitution. This is because; it violates the majority of the individuals’ rights. It is apparent that the Confusion State failed to put into consideration the principles of interstate commerce law. As a result, many people, including Tanya, rose against such a statute in defending themselves against this form of exploitation. Research has revealed that the State of Confusion utilizes the dormant commerce clause in the control of hitches used in the county’s trucks. It is remarkable that the high court of this State assumes the responsibility for the formulation of policies used to monitor their design and implementation (Cheeseman, 2009).
The idea of the antitrust occurring because of Confusion State’s monopolist in the design of this product is also unconstitutional. It is clear that the Federal government has not undertaken suitable measures against such an occurrence. Evidently, it would be impossible for people to depict a trust for a product manufactured by a single entity. Therefore, from the information obtained about this issue, it is obvious that the statute enacted by the State of Confusion is unconstitutional.
Provisions of the US Constitution
According to the research, the US Constitution has undergone several reviews, some of which have enhanced the dissimilar ways in which it performs its business. However, the tenth amendment of the constitution has provided much weight when it comes to matters pertaining to its intra, as well as interstate commerce. In as much as the validity of the State of Confusion’s statute is concerned, it is comprehensible that the commerce clause provides several powers that can suitably determine such validity (Cross, 2009). Additionally, the commerce clause provides Congress with powers that allow it to control all business activities across the states. After a vigilant examination of the provisions of various sections of the commerce clause, it is evident that the Confusion State’s statute infringes on some of them.
Tanya’s Likelihood to Win Over the Confusion State
After a careful examination of the commerce clause, it is clear that Tanya is likely to win the case. The Confusion’s idea to enact such a statute has violated the interstate commerce law. The federal government does not support such a statute, together with the idea of being a monopolist. As indicated in the literature, the Federal government is yet to provide the specifications to follow while designing the hitches to use in such trucks. Therefore, after putting all these factors into consideration, one can clearly dispute the Confusion’s possibility to win against Tanya.
The Stages of a Civil Lawsuit
The lawsuit presented in this discussion deals with the violations done when conducting business activities. When filing a case in a court, it is basic to note a number of stages followed. The actions presented in each stage must follow each other in a sequential manner. The foremost stage entails the presentation of claims (Cross, 2009). In this situation, Tanya ought to present her claims to the court. The claimant, who in this case, provides all the information that may be basic for the commencement of her case. It is basic for the claimant to have adequate information concerning his/her claims. Sequentially, the defendant is informed of the case.
The second stage, also known as the trial stage entails the listening of the case by the judge. This stage also entails the presentation of facts about the case at hand, together with evidence from the designated witnesses. After the examination of such facts and evidence, the judge is free to present his/her judgment for the case. However, in most cases, either of the parties is dissatisfied, and therefore, can fill forms to appeal. The appellant is free to provide reasons for the nullification of previous results. The shortage of additional evidence condenses the success of such an appeal (Cross, 2009). Finally, what follows is the enforcement usually performed by the Supreme Court. According to the US Constitution, the defendant must provide monetary rewards in case of a defeat by the claimant. Alternatively, in case of a win by the defendant, the claimant caters for the costs incurred during the entire process.
Conclusion
The deficiency in the knowledge needed when enacting a Statute that would eventually affect the way to conduct business is augmenting. The State of Confusion is an appropriate example that depicts such a proposition. Perceptibly, the State does not understand that inter and intra-state commerce clauses are significant when conducting business both within and without the US. Therefore, Tanya has the right to present her claims to the court concerning the new statute that requires her to fix the trailers’ hitches. Moreover, it is certain that all cases follow numerous stages when presented in a court.
References
Cross, J. (2009). Civil procedure: keyed to yeazell, seventh edition. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers Online.
Cheeseman, H. (2009). The legal environment of business and online commerce: business ethics, e-commerce, regulatory, and international issues. Valdosta, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.