State of Confusion Paper
Brian Johnson
University of Phoenix

State of Confusion Paper Tanya Trucker is the owner of a trucking company in the state of Denial and is seeking to file a law suit against Confusion to overturn their statute which requires truck drivers to have a specialized hitch installed in order to pass through Confusion. Tanya should take her case to the federal court. “It is the federal law who takes superiority and takes charge of any conflicts that happen within the state and locally” (Cheeseman, 2010). It would not be logical for Tanya to file the law suit within the state that actually passed the statute. Because it was the state that put in the law that requires the use of B-type truck hitches by all towing trailers and trucks, there would be no way Tanya would persuade the state to reverse the law. It would take a large population to have a problem with the law for they would even consider reversing it. Another way for the law to be completely done away with is for the government to eliminate it. The federal court and state court both have jurisdiction power involving this case. One may wonder of the statute in Confusion is actually constitutional. When comparing this case to the Rowe, Attorney General of Maine v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, it was determined that the Confusion statue was not constitutional. While reviewing that case, it was found that congress had the goal of maintaining a transportation system that is affordable, efficient, equal, and competitive. The issue in the case was going against the goal of congress. This particular case was handled by a federal court and because this case is similar to Tanya’s, she should go to a federal court. The state of Confusion is limiting their competitive market which will eventually have a negative effect on their communities. They are benefiting because they are the only state that produces and sells the B-type hitch, but because it is an extra expense to all incoming trucking companies, they will likely avoid going through the area to save on the cost of the hitch. There needs to be a balance in the transportation market and requiring a special piece of equipment just to cross through one state does not make sense. There are provisions of the United States Constitution that will be applied by a court to determine the statute’s validity. The most relevant provision to this particular case would be the Supremacy Clause. It states that regulations and the constitution all apply as the federal law of societies. This means that state or locally created law that is not a federal law is not supported as constitutional. Federal laws and the constitution will always take lead over state laws. There is a good chance that Tanya will likely prevail on her suit. This is being determined by the information studied from the case discussed earlier. The government is not likely to enforce the law requiring the hitch once seeing the negative effect it has on the transportation industry in the area and how the state of Confusion took sole control of the production of the hitches to make a profit from everybody. One of the constitutional provisions was broken by the state of Confusion when they committed the act of self-profit as a state. This information is adequate enough for Tanya to have a shot at winning her suit. There are several states of a civil law suit which are started by a suit in the court. In stage one, the suit will display all the reasons for the complainant’s actions on why their case should be supported by the court. Usually this consists of the complainant wanting the other party involved to pay for any damages or injuries caused. In stage two, a copy of the case against the defendant is sent to the defendant. Once received by the defendant, they will