View the step-by-step solution to:

Accepted Answer Because I believe that it's an unconstitutional restraint on commerce as between stateds - that they require a special type of

Accepted Answer

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

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

-

Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question