Question

For this assignment you will be answering the following two questions- See Below. Each correctly answered assignment question will be worth up to 5 points. Please refer to the General Discussion Board to see the Format in which your assignment MUST be submitted. For further guidance, read and review Appendix A in your textbook- How to Brief Cases and Analyze Case Problems.

1. COMMERCE CLAUSE

Suppose that Georgia enacts a law requiring the use of contoured rear-fender mudguards on trucks and trailers operating within its state lines. The statute further makes it illegal for trucks and trailers to use straight mudguards. In 35 states, straight mudguards are legal. Moreover, in the neighboring state of 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 or not this Georgia statute would violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

2. FREEDOM OF RELIGION

A business has a backlog of orders, and to meet its deadlines, management decides to run the firm seven days a week, eight hours a day. One of the employees, Mark Tollens, refuses to work on Saturday on religious grounds. His refusal to work means that the firm may not meet its production deadlines and may, therefore, suffer a loss of future business. The firm fires Mark and replaces him with an employee who is willing to work 7 days a week. Mark claims that in terminating his employment, his employer violated his constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Do you agree- why and why not?

I need answers in "IRAC" style format. It is for business law BUSE140

Answer 1

1. Issue: The statute passed in Georgia requiring the use of contoured rear-fender mudguards is illegal in Florida. So will the Georgia statute violate the commerce clause of US Constitution?

Rule: Commerce Law has been developed with an objective of facilitating trade. Moreover Georgia and Florida law are state specific and will have jurisdiction limited to the state.

Analysis: The specific rule of mudguards is state specific and will not be applicable on foreign vehicles coming to state for commercial purpose

Conclusion: There will be no violation of commerce clause of the US Constitution

2. Issue: Mark had refused to work on Saturday on religious grounds. He was terminated because of this. Mark has claimed that his termination was a violation of his constitutional right to free exercise of religion.

Rule: The First Amendment was drafted with the objective of exerting importance on the freedom of speech and expression rights of an individual as well as the freedom of religion which he or she may enjoy. The government or any legal body has no right to force a person to forego his religious ideas, duties and principles. In the same way, the government or the legal body cannot restrict an individual from expressing his or her views in public.

Analysis: The above-mentioned rule is not applicable in this case, primarily because the employer did not restrict Mark to practice his religion. Mark was terminated from his office because of denial of work. The company has every rights to terminate an employee if he is denying to work.

Conclusion: There is no violation of First amendment and the termination of Mark is valid