Substrate Record: qid 1342

← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1342 · law

Question: There is a thriving source of crawfish that live in a state. The state owns a fleet of boats that trawl for crawfish. The state is willing to sell the crawfish to in-staters for $1 per pound and to out-of-staters who come to the state for $5 per pound. The state felt that the increased fee for out-of-staters was a reasonable contribution toward the protection they received from the state. Assume that the federal court decided to hear the case. The statute is likely to be found

1. unconstitutional, because it infringes on the rights of interstate commerce.
2. constitutional, because out-of-staters are not entitled to the same benefits as residents.
3. unconstitutional, because it is a form of discrimination against nonresidents.
4. constitutional, because the fee was a reasonable contribution toward the protection that the state government gave nonresidents.
5. unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
6. unconstitutional, because it constitutes a violation of the privileges and immunities clause under Article IV.
7. constitutional, because the state has the power to regulate its own resources.
8. constitutional, because the fee is a way to manage and protect the state's crawfish population.
9. constitutional, because it is a valid exercise of the state's police power.

Our answer: F. unconstitutional, because it constitutes a violation of the privileges and immunities clause under Article IV. Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer