A Georgia state law requires the use of contoured rear-fender mudguards on trucks and trailers operating within Georgia state lines. The statute further makes it illegal for trucks and trailers to use straight mudguards. In approximately thirty-five other states, straight mudguards are legal. Moreover, in Florida, straight mudguards are explicitly required by law. There is some evidence suggesting that contoured mudguards might be a little safer than straight mudguards. Discuss whether this Georgia statute violates any constitutional provisions.

The Commerce Clause refers to the Article 1. Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution which gives "Congress the power of regulating trade between United States and other countries, interstate trade and trade with Indian Tribes".

Case summary:

The state law of GR enforces trucks and trailers operating within the state lines to use contoured rear-fender mudguards. The state further makes it illegal to use straight mud-guards. Based on certain evidences, contoured mudguards might be a little safer than straight mudguards.

Case analysis:

The positive aspect of the commerce clause is the power to congress to regulate the trade which ensures a good market scenario in the country. It helps to bring coordination and let the states trades freely.

Commerce clause besides giving exclusive rights to national government for regulating commerce among the states, restricts the state from doing so. In certain cases, it is found that state impositions or regulations create an unnecessary burden on the public. Thus, for this reason this clause is also called as -negative or dormant" clause.

In this case, state law seems to violate the law of national government under the interstate commerce act. This is for the reason that the state law explicitly requires the use of straight mudguards while this law is active in other states.

Thus, the GR state violates the constitutional provision as it restricts trade.

answer; i believe the correct answer is (4.0);

there was no passage listed but using the process of elimination i'd say it was d. the high economy would do the opposite. i don't see how low prices would affect it. high unemployment is possible but i feel d is the better answer.