State of Confusion The state of Confusion has promulgated a statute necessitating all trucks and towing trailers that travel its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. As a result of this statute, any trucker who wants to drive through Confusion must stop and have the new hitch installed or drive around Confusion. Moreover, only one manufacturer in Confusion produces this hitch. The federal government has not made any effort to standardize truck hitches being used on highways in the United States. Tanya Trucker owns a trucking company in the state of Denial and is not happy about the added expense this statute forces on her business.
Obviously, the federal court should have jurisdiction over the suit because this case involves federal government regulations and the state of Texas is violating the Commerce Clause by unduly burdening interstate commerce, which should make their statute unconstitutional. First, there is only one place located in Texas that manufactures the Z-hitch and the state requires any trucker driving through the state to stop and have the Z-hitch installed. Secondly, the federal government has not made any regulations requiring truck hitches to be used on the nation’s highways. Lastly, the cost to add a z-hitch to a truck is not cheap, not to mention for a trucking company. Dixon Trucking Co. should bring the lawsuit to U.S. District Court; his claim will be that the federal law preempted Texas’ statute.
State of Confusion Paper BUS/415 This case is between the B-type truck manufacturer in the state of Confusion and Tanya Trucker in the state of Denial. The case is about Tanya’s dislike with the state of Confusion, requiring anyone wishing to drive trucks in the state to install a B-type hitch. The hitch is manufactured only by one supplier in Confusion, so any truck that has to drive through the state must stop at that supplier and have the hitch installed or be held liable for any added expense while driving around the state of Confusion. Tanya Tucker owns a trucking company in the state of Denial and is upset about the situation in the state of Confusion and is planning to sue the state to have the statute overturned. The tenth Amendment
Introduction: Statement of Interest: The ability is one of the most cherished and fundamental rights in the United States of America and voter I.D laws may strip this right away Thesis: In this paper I will argue that voter ID laws are wrong, because they are a blatant attempt at voter suppression. Topic Sentence: Voter I.D. laws create a roadblock for certain registered voters to vote in the election. ● Registered voters who currently have no acceptable identification must go to their state’s Department of Motor Vehicles, bringing with them numerous forms of identification (bank statements, social security cards, etc.) to be issued I.D.
Racism and discrimination is not accepted in mainstream society. However, SB 1070 contradicts this belief of equal tolerance. This type of law opens the door for racial profiling. It is empowering law enforcement officers to practice a form of racial profiling. As stated by Kristina M. Campbell, “It was heavily criticized as a law whose enforcement would rely on racial profiling of Latinos and other racial minorities and that would require anyone to produce proof of citizenship to law enforcement officers on demand.”(Campbell 1) SB 1070 is visibly targeting immigrants from Mexico.
Newcomers are particularly vulnerable to the disease because the exposure to dust seems to build up immunity among the residents. Bud became quite ill and brought suit against the car manufacturer that invited him for its failure to warn him about the valley fever phenomenon before he came out to the testing grounds. Answer the following questions, and use cases and theories from the text to support your arguments: Was there negligence in the failure of General Motors to warn Bud? (15 points) Discuss all defenses General Motors may have. (15 points) Does strict liability in torts apply to this situation?
The ad is misleading because any truck buyer knows there is more to buying a truck than just making it sound good. The ad fails to provide the features of the vehicle. The gas mileage per gallon is not included nor is the inside space mentioned. The ad is using the fallacy of influence because it is aware that while most sports fans read the Sports Illustrated magazine, the people will be more influenced to buy the Nissan Frontier because of the comparison to the Heisman winner Mark Ingram. However, there is not enough factual information about the truck, leaving almost all questions about the truck unanswered.
Jurisdiction The jurisdiction over the lawsuit belongs to the state courts of the State of Confusion or the Federal United States district court. The State of Confusion courts is the proper venue to preside over the lawsuit because the statute is being enacted in the State of Confusion. Tanya operates her business in the State of Denial. The State of Denial would not have jurisdiction over the lawsuit because it
Ban the Arizona Immigration Law The law I propose is to have the Arizona Immigration Law banned and repelled. Illegal immigrants come to the United States for the good life and start fresh, but thinking about it more and more illegal immigrants are going to fill the United States without even knowing the laws or language, which is why we need to ban the Arizona Law. This law is needed because it subjects plenty of ethnic groups and races to public discrimination and racism, which violates the rights of citizens (Americanized citizens). Like how the schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote resentment of a particular race or class of people or is designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group
Labelling a person as an illegal alien portrays that the individual, as opposed to his or her actions, is unlawful. By using this term Dwyer implies that the person’s very existence as an authorized migrant in the country is criminal. His use of the term is not only dehumanizing, but also racial and ethnically biased. Conclusion In conclusion, the article portrays a detailed discussion on Dwyer’s views towards the gun control law and the state of the country under the current government. He uses language to sway his readers and provides evidence to support his views.