Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
24. Is the state law constitutional?
The state legislature has recently enacted a law «to protect the children of this state from faulty science and to protect in-state toy manufacturers from unfair competition.» The law forbids the sale in the state of any toy that purports to represent extraterrestrial objects and does not satisfy specified scientific criteria. The Martian toy manufactured in the state satisfies all of these criteria; none of the Martian toys of the competing manufacturers meet the requirements.
A toy manufacturer that has its headquarters and sole manufacturing plant in a particular state has developed a «Martian» toy that simulates the exploration of Mars by a remote-controlled vehicle. It accurately depicts the Martian landscape and the unmanned exploratory vehicle traversing it. The toy is of high quality, is safe and durable, and has sold very well. Other toy manufacturers, all located outside of the state, have developed similar toys that are lower in price. These manufacturers have contracts to sell their Martian toys to outlets in the state. Although these toys are safe and durable, they depict the Martian landscape less realistically than the toys manufactured in the state. Nevertheless, because of the price difference, sales of these toys have cut severely into the sales of the Martian toys manufactured in the state.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. It is true that the state law is unconstitutional, but this answer misstates the reasoning for this conclusion. The Contracts Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution) does not forbid state laws affecting contractual relations between private parties so long as the laws are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. Because the courts typically defer to state regulations of private contracts as reasonable, the law at issue here is not likely to be found unconstitutional under the Contracts Clause. Rather, the law clearly violates the negative implications of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution), because it has a purely discriminatory effect against out-of-state toy manufacturers despite any number of less discriminatory alternatives available to the state to protect the legitimate interests cited in the law.
C is incorrect. State regulations of local matters are subject to the negative implications of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution) if they have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. By barring in-state sales of the Martian toys manufactured in other states, the state law has such an effect. The law is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause because it has a purely discriminatory effect against out-of-state toy manufacturers despite any number of less discriminatory alternatives available to the state to protect the legitimate interests cited in the law.
D is incorrect. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution) gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states and, by negative implication, restricts the regulatory power of the states with respect to interstate commerce. Any state law that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce must not be protectionist or otherwise impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. A protectionist law benefits in-state interests at the expense of out-of-state interests. A state law that discriminates against interstate commerce is protectionist unless it serves a legitimate local interest that cannot be served by non-discriminatory legislation. By barring in-state sales of the Martian toys manufactured in other states, the state law has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Further, it has a purely discriminatory effect against out-of-state toy manufacturers. Although the state's interest in protecting children from faulty science is legitimate, it does not justify the law's discriminatory burden on interstate commerce because the state has less discriminatory alternatives available to protect the interest.