Stuart Waterstone Forum Index Stuart Waterstone

 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Answers to "Iowa" hypothetical

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Stuart Waterstone Forum Index -> Questions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 163

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:31 pm    Post subject: Answers to "Iowa" hypothetical Reply with quote

Here is your fellow student's answer to the hypothetical. In my opinion, it's a textbook perfect answer.

Assignment #2: Hypothetical
Issue: Is Iowa’s state statute that restricts the length of trucks that can use highways in the state to 55 feet constitutional?

Rule: Under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is permitted to regulate activities that effect interstate commerce. Any local activity that has effect on interstate commerce is subject to federal regulation. Under the Dormant Commerce Clause, if congress could write a law involving a commercial product and its effects interstate commerce, it can be be deemed unconstitutional and prohibited under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Analysis: This case involves “dormant” Commerce Clause because there is no federal law regulating the same subject matter as Iowa’s state law. In order for Consolidated to use the Commerce Clause they have to prove that it violated a law enacted by Congress or in the U.S. Constitution. Since there is no law to tie into this, the Dormant Commerce Clause must be used. Iowa’s law prohibits Consolidated Freightways Corporation from passing through their state with the articles of interstate commerce within their trailers. For this reason the matter becomes an interstate issue because all trucking firms with trailers longer than 55 feet cannot pass through Iowa. Even though there is not a law enacted by Congress restricting this, Congress has the power to create a law to regulate this because it has an effect on interstate commerce.

Conclusion: Iowa’s law is unconstitutional.

Here is my model answer:

Issue: Is the Iowa legislation Constitutional?

Rule: The Dormant Commerce Clause.

Analsyis: The Dormant Commerce Clause instructs that if Congress COULD pass legislation any law that conflicts with this ability is void. Analysis: Is there any obstacle to Iowa regulating its own highways? There are NO Federal Laws regulating length of trucks using the Nation’s highways, so the Supremacy Clause does not apply here. It is obvious that interstate commerce is severely impacted by Iowa’s regulations; BUT once again there is no Congressional Laws so we can’t use the Interstate Commerce Clause ALONE, but this is a perfect example of the DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE, i.e. Congress COULD pass legislation regarding this issue if they wanted to.

Conclusion: Congress has this power making Iowa’s law unconstitutional.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Stuart Waterstone Forum Index -> Questions All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group