Free State of Confusion Essay Sample
Buy Cheap State of Confusion Essay
The US constitution provides for a judicial system purely separate from the legislative system. The judicial structure provides for all types of cases from bankruptcy to intelligence surveillance courts. Tanya, stays in the State of Denial intends to sue the State of Confusion. Tanya will therefore file a court case against the State of Confusion at the District Court because both are within the United States. The District court of the US is entitled to handle trials filled by a citizen between two citizens of different states on civil issues the above case being not an exception (Choper, 2001).
The United States district court handles civil cases between a state and the citizen. The state is the State of Confusion and the Citizen being Tanya Trucker, the owner of trucking company. However Tanya Trucker is not bound to only this court she has the option of filling the court in the state court because of the procedure established by the congress in such a way that defendant can move the case to the federal court. This is in the condition that the federal court has jurisdiction to handle civil cases (Stimson, 2009).
Therefore Tanya Trucker will sue the State of Confusion of denying her the rights and privileges as a citizen of the united states from movement and subsequent limiting her choice to one hitch. This subsequently makes her incur more cost and be unable to carry out her business comfortably (Choper, 2001).
The state of the confusion statute is constitutional. The statute put in place goes by the constitution as it does restrict the use of B-type truck hitch only within its state territories. The state is thus mandated to regulate and maintain safety precautions in the road network with its stat. Moreover the federal government has not enacted any laws or statutes to regulate on the use of a certain type of hitch around the nation hence this are not controversial (Choper, 2001).
The provisions of the Constitution of the United State Section 9, gives a clear basis for the constitutionality of this case. The statute passed by the State of Confusion is validated by the provisions section (section 9) of the constitution that has that preference should not be given to the basis of the regulation of revenues. This section also affirms that vessels shouldn’t be bound to pay duties in another state (pp. 87). Obviously this charge to use only the B-type truck hitch is only to those within the State of Confusion. This is an action of the safety measure of the roads of the state of Confusion.
Personally I would take side as per Section 2 of Article IV since it supports citizenship of other people of the state in any other state. This covers the immunity and the entitlements of the citizens in quite a number of states. This means that one will be treated the same while on his state and when on another state since they all have similarities. Hence Tanya is entitled to use any hitch whatsoever he deems suitable for his truck. Tanya’s business involves travelling around the whole country. If going through Confusion state increases her sales and reduces her travelling costs then she is entitled to go through the State without any restriction and carry out her business. She should neither be barred from using other hitches nor the road through Confusion State. She is constitutionally bound to exercise he constitutional right to use any. The Confusion State has got no strong basis to set up this statute as most people can easily enter and leave the state not to mention the free trade. It is neither an internal control nor a form of identity but a way of extorting money from the people of the United States of America (Stimson, 2009).
The United States Constitution
Tanya is to win the case because this statute affects all the states against one state. The United States of America being a democratic state will definitely have the minority have their say and the majorities have their say. The judge will also consider the state of interrelation posed by the State of Confusion to other States which is quite cumbersome. Every track right from any state, say Washington DC is supposed to either stop or have their hitch changed to B-type truck hitch the moment they want either to get in or pass through the States of Confusion. In such a developed country it will imply wasting time and being illogical. It means that those trucks will incur unexpected costs which will eventually spoil the relationship between the State of Confusion and other states (Stimson, 2009).
Incase every state decided to use this method that every state have their own type of hitch with their own manufactures the United States Spirit of togetherness, their visions, goals and national pride will be severely ruined because this will lead to personalization of business at state levels which will lack flexibility and taste by other US states.
Confusion state appears to be promoting that one manufacture over others within and outside the state. Such favors from the state might arouse concern even by the federal government. It is a crystal clear show of inequality, favors over other manufacturers and an anterior reason worth investigation and charge at the end of the day. The charge will be rooted to those concerned and this might escalate to the questioning of the governors and associates of the State of Confusion (http://www.solvenow.org/topics/view/54096/).
The stages of a law suit basically entail the following;
Pleading and pretrial starts with the plaintiff filing a complaint in the court against the defendant seeking reimbursement for losses incurred as explained in the summon duly signed by both the defendant and the plaintiff. Then a lawsuit begins. During the lawsuit evidence and statements will be disclosed, it is normally the hearings taking place.
Trial and judgment then proceeds with a trial where each side presents a witness to give evidence. The responsibility of proof of true evidence falls in the shoulder of the plaintiff at this stage with respect to the claim. At this point the judge may offer alternative resolution; either for compensation or change of action hereinafter.
Incase no resolution is met then the judge makes his judgment based on the case. After this evidences and subsequent consideration of the judge that he will give the judgment either for or against the plaintiff. If any party is not satisfied then they might choose to go to the court of appeal to appeal for judgment on their case which they believe it was not passed well.
The final judgment at the court of appeal is made and neither of the party is allowed to bring such claim under res judicata. This normally avoids controversial results on the same case. However if the plaintiff wins then the judgment might multiply against the defendant (Stimson, 2009).
In looking at Tanya Trucker’s case I find the Constitution to providing for equality covers rights of its citizens fullest and forge towards comfort ability of each and every individual. With amendments 14 which further guards citizen’s rights I find it purely democratic and suitable for the nation.