Because I believe that it's an unconstitutional restraint on commerce as between stateds - that they require a special type of "hitch" to be used or trucks can't operate within the state although legal in all other states. That type of legislation if stictly within the province of the federal gov't.
In fact, the federal gov't almost always imposes and mandates any and all safety requirements for vehicles - whether commercial or personal.
It would be different if the statute was for some other purpose (like California's emissions standards) to limit pollution within it's territory. However, with the facts presented doesn't seem that the state of Confusion can make that argument.
I think that she will prevail on a few grounds:
1) unconstitional restraint on commerce as between states
2) that the legislation is strictly within the province of the federal gov't
3) that Confusion is creating an unconstituional monopoly against other states
4) that Confusion didn't justify their statute upon a reasonable and rational basis to require the specific type of hitch that must be used
Read more: http://www.justanswer.com/questions/39et5-the-state-of-confusion-enacted-a-statute-requiring-all-trucks#ixzz0mzkEOoNh
Recently Asked Questions
- I need a full essay for the Death of a Salesman. It will be due on November 28th, 2018.
- Which of the following is a false statement about the performance management process? A. When the person evaluating performance isn't
- Emergency room arrivals in a large hospital showed the statistics below for 2 months. At α = .01, has the variance changed?