Module_for_MISC38
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Elgin Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
1
Uploaded by aboubou25
26. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Question 12 Large semi-trailer trucks ordinarily used either “Gripper” tires or “Grabber” tires. There was some difference in the design of the tires, and a number of tire manufacturers made both types of tires, which were deemed to be equally safe by independent testing labs. Most state statutes and vehicle regulations allowed the use of both types of tires on state highways. How- ever, State Plum and State Apricot had laws on their books permitting only Grippers and ban- ning Grabbers. State Grapefruit, on the other hand, had a statute allowing the use of Grabbers, and banning Grippers, on its state highways. The National Trucking Board, a trade associa- tion of interstate trucking firms, brought suit to have the laws of State Plum and State Apricot declared unconstitutional. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which struck down the Apricot and Plum statutes as undue burdens on interstate commerce. The National Trucking Board then brought suit in federal court to have the State Grapefruit statute banning Grippers struck down. The Grapefruit attorney general argued that the Grapefruit statute did not burden interstate commerce because Grabbers were now legal in all 50 states. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. How should the Court rule on the constitu- tionality of the statute? (A) Constitutional, because there is no differ- ence in safety between Grippers and Grab- bers. (B) Constitutional, because the states have the power to regulate safety on their highways. (C) Unconstitutional, because it is an undue burden on interstate commerce. (D) Unconstitutional, because it violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. Question 13 The President of the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with Nerddistan, a sovereign nation, regarding the probate of estates. One part of the agreement provided that, should a citizen of Nerddistan die owning property in the United States or its Common- wealths or Territories, the executor or adminis- trator appointed in Nerddistan should have the power to deal with such property and a separate American administrator or executor need not be appointed. Reciprocal rights were extended to United States citizens who died owning property in Nerddistan. Tadzik, a citizen of Nerddistan, died owning property in the United States state of Gulfstream. Tadzik’s will appointed Elwwan, a citizen of Nerddistan, as executor. A law in the state of Guifstream requires that all property left by will within the state of Gulfstream be pro- bated by an executor or administrator who is a resident of Gulfstream. If Elwwan desires to act as executor of the estate and properly distribute the Gulfstream property in accordance with Tadzik’s will, should he be allowed to do so, notwithstanding the Gulfstream statute? (A) No, because the probate of real property within the state is within the exclusive purview of the state. (B) No, because an executive agreement 1s not a treaty, and state law takes precedence OVer executive agreements. (C) Yes, because executive agreements super- sede state laws. (D) Yes, because executive agreements are entitled to full faith and credit. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help