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.
Explain. [Bannister v. Bemis Co. , 556 F.3d 882 (8th Cir.2009)] Case brief: Bemis Co, breached the covenant not to compete, the breach was material. Bannister could not accept employment with a Bemis competitor, but Bemis was to pay Bannister his salary. There was no term for a partial release. Bemis “released” Bannister to seek employment with one exception—Mondi Packaging.
The opinion of the court pointed to three areas Congress may act under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress can regulate the use of channels of interstate commerce, Congress is also empowered to regulate and protect instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come from interstate activities, and Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce. It is obvious that Congress had over reached with Gun-Free School Zones Act of
They are not requiring the B-type hitch to guard the roadways and are exclusively requiring the hitch to generate additional profits. Therefore, the Confusion statute is unconstitutional. What Provisions of the U.S. Constitution Will Be Applied by a Court
According to the Commerce Clause the state statute is unconstitutional because it is a burden on interstate commerce to the state of Confusion. This law prohibits B-type hitch fittings. Only one manufacturer in the state of Confusion makes this type of hitch. This creates problems such as expense, complications of trade, time consumption, and business transactions. Because of all these problems along with unconstitutional barriers through this statute, there is a significant chance that Tanya will win this case.
The state of Confusion enacted a law to control commerce that the federal government had not regulated for some time. However, Confusion’s regulation cannot improperly inconvenience interstate commerce because it would be unconstitutional. Tanya Trucker’s Road to Succeeding Tanya Trucker’s likelihood of prevailing in this case is optimistic. The fact that Confusion is executing an unconstitutional act by initiating a statute to require B-type truck hitches on their roadways gives Trucker a legal advantage to succeed in a civil suit. The State of Confusion would have to generate a constitutionally valid reason for requiring B-type truck hitches not only in their state, but also on all national roadways.
I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
Leah Earp 1. Ronderos should win the lawsuit because the property was rightfully Schock’s already and Ronderos is not a merchant therefore the risk of loss is Schock’s. 6. The dealer cannot reclaim the automobile because the buy was a good faith purchaser and the dealer can only make a lawsuit against B. 10.
Also, the United District Court was not persuaded that Williams was lying about his ignorance to the contents of the Form 1040 based on the fact that Williams relied on his accountant to fill out the Form and he had never been advised of the existence of the TDF 90-22.1. However, the “yes” or “no” box indicating whether a taxpayer has an interest in financial accounts in a foreign country on Schedule B is understandable to reasonable persons. The United District Court judged Williams’ failure to check “yes” as understandable omission is not fair. In contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeal clearly stated that in Williams’s guilty plea allocution, he acknowledged that he willfully failed to report the existence of the ALQI accounts to the IRS as part of his larger scheme of tax evasion, which weakened the decision of the
IMMIGRATION OUTLINE INA codified in Title 8 of the US Code, enforced by INS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION CONSTITUTION Govn’t of enumerated powers… can only do what is necessary and proper • Commerce Art I§8cl.3 – no state power to interfere o Migration is commerce, state statute making it a crime to bring indigent person into state is unconstitutional. • Naturalization – Art I§8cl.4 constitution grants power for uniform rule implies regulation? o Prevents confusion of separate state laws • War power – Art.I§8cl.11 authority to stop entry and expel enemy aliens • Migration and Importation Art I §9 cl.1– was really attempt to protect slave trade • Foreign Affairs Power – associate