Critical Legal Thinking Cases Case 4.2 and 4.7

Critical Legal Thinking Cases Case 4.2 and 4.7

Or get it used now for:

Regular price $7.00 Sale

Prepare answers to the following chapter-end Critical Legal Thinking Cases from this week's reading.ÊCase 4.2: Supremacy Clause on page 79Ê Case 4.7: Equal Protection Clause on page 80Ê

Your responses should be well-rounded and analytical, and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice. For each question, you should provide at least one reference in APA format (in-text citations and references as described in detail in the Syllabus). Each answer should be double-spaced in 12-point font, and your response to each question should be between 300 words in length. Submit this assignment as a single Word document covering both cases. 4.2 Supremacy Clause The Clean Air Act, a federal statute, establishes national air pollution standards for fleet vehicles such as buses, taxicabs, and trucks. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast) is a political entity of the state of California. South Coast establishes air pollution standards for the Los Angeles, California, metropolitan area. South Coast enacted fleet rules that prohibited the purchase or lease by public and private fleet operators of vehicles that do not meet stringent air pollution standards set by South Coast. South CoastÕs fleet emission standards are more stringent than those set by the federal Clean Air Act. The Engine Manufacturers Association (Association), a trade association that represents manufacturers and sellers of vehicles, sued South Coast, claiming that South CoastÕs fleet rules are preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. The U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld South CoastÕs fleet rules. The Association appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Are South CoastÕs fleet rules preempted by the federal Clean Air Act? Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 541 U.S. 246, 124 S.Ct. 1756, 158 L.Ed.2d 529, Web 2004 U.S. Lexis 3232 (Supreme Court of the United States) 4.7 Equal Protection Clause The state of Alabama enacted a statute that imposed a tax on premiums earned by insurance companies. The statute imposed a 1 percent tax on domestic insurance companies (i.e., insurance companies that were incorporated in Alabama and had their principal office in the state). The statute imposed a 4 percent tax on the premiums earned by out-of-state insurance companies that sold insurance in Alabama. Out-of-state insurance companies could reduce the premium tax by 1 percent by investing at least 10 percent of their assets in Alabama. Domestic insurance companies did not have to invest any of their assets in Alabama. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, an out-of-state insurance company, sued the state of Alabama, alleging that the Alabama statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Who wins and why? Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward, Commissioner of Insurance of Alabama, 470 U.S. 869, 105 S.Ct. 1676, 84 L.Ed.2d 751, Web 1985 U.S. Lexis 80 (Supreme Court of the United States)

Preview

South Coasts fleet rules are preempted by the Federal Clean Air Act due to the Supremacy ...w of the land,Ó and no other laws will supersede it. The clause means that the federal laws usually have more control over the state and local laws. This definition and reading... the authority of the state of California to enforce. By exceeding the requirements of the Clean Air Act, South Coast violated the federal law. This is when the Supremacy Clause was invoked in order to show that the South