Use of B-Type Truck Hitch by Trucks Using State of Confusions Highways - Case Study Example

Case; Use of B-type truck hitch by trucks using State of Confusion’s highways Name: Instructor: Course: Date: Case; Use of B-type truck hitch by trucks using State of Confusion’s highways: Law consists of rules that regulate the conduct of individuals, businesses or other organizations within a society. It is intended to protect the persons and their property against unwanted interference from others. In other words, it has a binding legal force. (Copland, 2004) Constitution on the other hand is the set of agreed rules and laws that govern a society or a country. The set of those rules are usually laid down and formulated by the people of a country and are upon acceptance supposed to be followed and respected by all members of that country. (Copland, 2004) The constitution however contains many clauses each addressing a different issue concerning a country. In our case we focus on the clause that govern and address the issue of movement across borders. Going by the US constitution, the Supreme Court recognizes freedom of movement as a fundamental constitutional right, and defines it as the right of free ingress into other states and engress from them. (Chisholm and Nettheim, 2007) The issue of freedom of movement and travel has however in the recent past received new attention and consideration out of the reasons of security and state regulations. In our case of study, Tanya is worried about the rising costs she is incurring out of the statute that her trucks have to be installed with B-type hitch. Issue of concern now is the reasons behind the state of confusion enacting such a law. As well known, the federal government does not have any power to protect freedom of movement and this is the reason why the federal government of Confusion state has not attempted to regulate the issue of truck hitches used in the highways. When a plaintiff like in our case Tanya, files a case concerning new regulations on her trucks entering another country which in our case is the state of Confusion, the court that will have jurisdiction over her suit is the Court of Federal claims, though the State court normally contain appellate jurisdiction may also be involved. (Chisholm and Nettheim, 2007) This therefore implies that the state of confusion has violated or gone against the commerce clause, and is minimizing importation and exportation, thereby reducing profits in the long run. Under my legal and independent reasoning, the Confusion statute is unconstitutional because; There is no where stated that the statute is according to the governing laws of the State of Confusion. This is to imply that is could have been implemented out of malice. The statute does not however state whether it applies to the local trucks and towing trailers. This is to mean that if it applies to foreign trucks alone, the organization behind constructing that law wants to regulate the number of foreign trucks in their country. Under the laws of the State of Confusion, I don’t think there is a clause authorizing the enactment of sub-laws affecting truck movement across the borders. The fact that it is only one manufacturer that produces the B-type truck hitch also gives a hint of the act of malice the state of confusion has. The state is after higher margins of profit from outside (foreign) trucks. (Chisholm and Nettheim, 2007) The unconstitutionality part of the statute is that failure to install the hitch forces one to go round the country. No threat or harm has been said to be posed by the trucks. The failure of the Federal government to check on and regulate the types of hitches used on the highways is a clear indication of negligence. (Copland, 2004) Under the provisions of the US constitution, the statute of the state of confusion could have been termed illegal. It is the right of any person possessing legal and original documentation to access entry through the borders of a another state without being forced to meet ‘other’ tertiary laws whose creation and implementation has not been agreed upon by the involved groups and the parties to be affected. (Copland, 2004) The US constitution provides that if the trucks from the state of Denial, where Tanya hails from, have no negative impact on the highways of the state of Confusion, then the installation of B-type hitches, which have been manufactured in the state of Confusion and by a specific company reveals that it is a plan between the host country’s government and the B-type hitch producing plant to improve their sales and on the same regulate the number of foreign trucks in their country. (Kinley, 2004) The constitution of the US therefore would deem the statute invalid: Out of the above reasoning, the provision of law is that one has the right to transact his/her business freely across borders provided that he/she meets the laid down criteria of doing it and is in line with the requirements of inter-border movements. In my opinion, Tanya is successfully going to prevail in her suit because it is out of malice that she is being forced to install the B-type hitch in her trucks. If her trucks have been traveling on the same highways before the statute, then there lies no reason of installation of new hitch which is being done by the host country. If evidence of no damage or harm has been reported out of the foreign trucks, then a sudden law which requires them to change their routine has no valid constitutional reasons to prevail. (Copland, 2004) Secondly, the negligence of the federal government to regulate the local trucks gives us the reason of enacting a statute to foreign trucks alone a hidden agenda which has no legal base. The basic stages involved in a civil lawsuit are; Filling complaint by plaintiff, which involves the plaintiff filling a complaint form to sue the accused/defendant Pretrial process with the defendant, where the defendant is serviced, asked to fill questions and the discovery of the charges. Then follows a pretrial session with the judge where the parties are given options of the case ahead of them. The trial process then takes place and the parties are aligned in front of a court of law. Both are given chances to give their story which is followed by a verdict. The final process is the judgment which is passed on by the presiding judge and where appropriate, appeal follows. (Copland, 2004) References: Chisholm and Nettheim, (2007). Understanding Border and State Laws, New York: Butterworth press. Copland. (2004). Border security: Immigration Reform Bill. New York: McGraw Hill press Kinley, D. (2004). The bill of Federal Rights, Australia: Federation press Read More