ÿWPCÆ    jc  ;ôâáú×V çK6óñ ]ÂrV{Dë—øxPs–œ>øÅᣛ¼àªië‡ê7à³pwÒô‘Ä)ž-Ù&´ËñQÍWÚ^ƒèÁÕUðÖGºtS"‹óŸQ”‹Gy*¤º$sœGiuÝú‹ä¶º†Ãñ‡*ezˆÅæÀ&ÆÞ·Jeù0¤ÿd~]1ØbWÔAFD"Yó‹< ™{¹)?ÓÇn‡H¸¶K‹¾ÔÅûøq4ØèAêòÿ%jéÀYôŽà—¼Ò ™•tŠêˆÉðg“Á†«f†U£T”hd–-:[)“êè“ËêVÊdx5~/æË™……9ÔU¡:äž0 ÈÊÐ'eJ9Ÿn7Mwåå6hµçbŸbjª]¿ñ£öAȯ¬B)Gœ·v@ »>ßà eÐZª#n뱑ú2šWUë´«,~.°ØÈó½—²qƒJ¥!A_Z·Ö¿ÿM>Eú÷™Oÿx½ÝgÁÈ|éßÍÆ”Ž¨6×xô¥X彞²Ì%Žßlõ˜õ3‡ê‘ô6‚O،ޮËÿ±›k(Åè—A§qÎ9YpÚû¡þíñ½Ï .¨ä·ymÛÒ:É„oÜxþ©3ºhx<Q¢»M@/ß_ « 0 à Z 0 D  0 D a 0 D ¥ B  é B *  B  0 B  M B  j B  ‡ U 2 ¤ %  Ö  Æ Ü D + ¢ A S Í  Æ  D + æ A I   Æ Z D +  A I K # Á ” U . U  ~ ƒ  Æ  D + Ç A I ò  ¶ ; U > ñ N  / ^ 1 w  = 4  A   U   d m  f U N } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } 0 ß Ë D 3 ª ª ª ª 0 ß Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý  Æ ¼ 0 D ‚   ( › æa$ ¡ ¡ Ô  USUS. ,  ÔÓK € (  € X ° K ÓÔ €  X$· X X X  ÔÔ €  X$· X X X$· Ô  (   #Ã$ òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  (   #Ã$ òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  (   #Ã$ òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó         d &  ÿÿ 0    d   d   þÿ     d    ýÿ     d    üÿ P  P  d   ûÿ       d <  Œ  p` + ‹ C o u r i e r T T  X  L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 )    È È È È d d © •  ª ‘ E  þÿ    <<     Cÿÿ        L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 )    È È È È d d   A     ° °  Cÿÿ        L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 )    È È È È d d   A  üÿ   ° °  Cÿÿ       ˜H P L a s e r J e t 4 / 4 M P l u s P S È Ü Ø Ü Ü Ø È Ü 0 <  Œ  p`  ‹ A r i a l T T   ˜C : \ P R O G R A ~ 1 \ C O R E L \ W O R D P E ~ 1 \ T E M P L A T E \ C U S T O M ~ 1 \ W E B \ W P 9 W E B . W P T  L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 )    È È È È d d   A      ›   Cÿÿ       C : \ P r o g r a m F i l e s \ C o r e l \ W o r d P e r f e c t O f f i c e 2 0 0 0 \ T e m p l a t e \ C u s t o m W P T e m p l a t e s \ W e b \ w p 9 w e b . w p t ( ÖÃ9  Z  ‹& T i m e s N e w R o m a n  馓(L :VK' ¤ Lƒ 3| x     ÿU‹ÿ ÀÀÀ( ÖÃ9  Z  ‹6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r   ( · 3 o$ £ £ Ý  ƒ  æa! ÝÔ  USUS. ,  ÔÓK € (  € X ° K ÓÔ €  X06 X X X  ÔÔ €  X06 X X X06 ÔÝ   Ý     '  ÿÿ  d x d  ( · 3 o$ ¢ ¢ Ý  ƒ  æa! ÝÔ  USUS. ,  ÔÓK € (  € X ° K ÓÔ €  X06 X X X  ÔÔ €  X06 X X X06 ÔÝ   ݃  L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5   (   $$ ” ” ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÔ_    ÔÓ   ÓÝ  ƒ  æaÿ ÝÔ  USUS. ,  ÔÓK € (  € X K ÓÔ €  X06 X X X  ÔÔ €  X06 X X X06 ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ý ÓÓ   ÓÔ €%  X06 X X X06 ÔWILLIAM€MITCHELL€COLLEGE€OF€LAWÐ Ü Ü   ÐFINAL€EXAMINATION€€€€€CONSTITUTIONAL€LAWð"ðPOWERSÐ ¤¤   ÐProfessor€Ann€Ô_    ÔIijimaÔ_    ÔÐ ll   ÐÌThursday,€December€8,€1994€„€6:30„8:30€p.m.Ð üü   Ð2€Hours€„€Open€BookÐ Ä Ä    ÐÓ    ÓÌÔ_    ÔScotusÔ_    Ô€Corporation€is€the€largest€private€business€in€the€State€of€Mitchell€in€terms€of€earnings€and€work€force.€In€1991Ð T T    ÐÔ_    ÔScotusÔ_    Ô€earned€profits€of€$300€million€on€total€sales€of€two€billion€dollars€and€employed€100,000€persons€(out€of€a€totalÐ @@   ÐMitchell€civilian€labor€force€of€two€million€persons).€Scotus€manufactures€and€sells€automobile€tires.€It€operates€fiveÐ ,,   Ðmanufacturing€plants€in€various€Mitchell€locations.€It€sells€its€tires€in€Mitchell€and€throughout€the€United€States.€In€1991Ð    ÐScotus€sold€50%€of€all€tires€sold€in€Mitchell.Ð    ÐÌÔ_    ÔOckhamÔ_    Ô€Tire€is€an€unincorporated€sole€proprietorship€owned€by€a€wealthy€billionaire€named€Olga€Ockham,€who€lives€andÐ ””   Ðhas€her€tire€factory€in€the€neighboring€state€of€Whately.€Like€Scotus,€Ockharn€manufactures€and€sells€automobile€tiresÐ €€   Ðthroughout€the€United€States.€In€1990€Ô_    ÔOckhamÔ_    Ô€discovered€and€patented€a€revolutionary€process€for€making€tires.€ThisÐ ll   Ðprocess€involves€the€use€of€a€newly„synthesized€chemical€known€as€ð ðÔ_    ÔZytronÔ_    Ô„28,ðð€which€Ockham€also€has€patented.€The€tiresÐ XX   Ðproduced€by€this€new€process€last€three€times€longer€than€conventional€tires,€including€those€manufactured€by€Scotus.€InÐ DD   Ð1991€Ô_    ÔOckhamÔ_    Ô€Tire€began€cutting€into€Scotus'€market€share€in€Mitchell.€For€example,€in€1993€Scotus'€market€share€of€tiresÐ 00   Ðsold€in€Mitchell€was€reduced€to€20€%,€while€Ockham's€market€share€was€45%.Ð    ÐÌIn€January,€1994,€Aquinas,€the€Chief€Executive€Officer€of€Scotus€spoke€with€the€majority€leaders€of€the€two€branches€of€theÐ ¬¬   ÐMitchell€Legislature.€Aquinas€informed€the€two€legislators€about€the€recent€competition€from€Ockham€and€said€that€unlessÐ ˜˜   Ðsomething€was€done€quickly€to€help€Scotus€regain€its€market€position,€Scotus€faced,€at€worst,€a€serious€risk€of€bankruptcy,Ð „„   Ðand,€at€best,€the€certainty€of€a€drastic€reduction€in€earnings€and€work€force.€€The€two€majority€leaders€told€Aquinas€that€theÐ p p    Ðeconomic€health€of€the€Ô_    ÔScotusÔ_    Ô€Corporation€was€ð ðvery€important€to€the€economy€of€Mitchellðð€and€that€they€were€ð ðconfidentÐ \!\!   Ðof€being€able€to€work€out€some€legislative€solution€which€will€gain€the€support€of€the€Legislature.ðð€€€However,€theyÐ H"H"   Ðcautioned€Aquinas€that€any€legislative€solution€would€ð ðhave€to€be€able€to€withstand€a€court€challenge.ððÐ 4#4#   ÐÌShortly€after€that€meeting,€the€federal€Environmental€Protection€Agency€published€the€results€of€a€two„year€study€onÐ Ä&Ä&   Ðð ðenvironmental€hazards€caused€by€new€manufacturing€methods.ðð€The€study€stated€that€35€manufacturing€methods€introducedÐ °'°'   Ðin€the€United€States€within€the€last€ten€years€ð ðpresent€substantial€environmental€and€health€risks,€including€increased€risks€ofÐ œ(œ(   Ðcancer.ðð€One€of€the€35€methods€mentioned€in€the€report€was€the€ð ðprocess€of€manufacturing€tires€by€the€use€of€Ô_    ÔZytronÔ_    Ô„28.ððÐ ˆ)ˆ)   ÐÌThis€report€quickly€came€to€the€attention€of€those€members€of€the€Mitchell€LegislatureÐ --"   Ðwho€were€working€on€a€legislative€solution€for€Scotus'€economic€difficulties.€After€reading,Ð à.à.#   Ðthe€report,€they€drafted€a€bill,€which€was€enacted€into€law€on€March€1,€1994,€as€the€òòÔ_    ÔZytronÔ_    Ô‚Ð ¨0¨0$   Ð28€Environmental€Protection€Actóó€(Ô_    ÔZEPAÔ_    Ô).€Ô_    ÔZEPAÔ_    Ô€prohibits€the€manufacture,€sale,€orÐ p2p2%   Ðdistribution€within€Mitchell€of€any€product€containing€Zytron„28.€€Ô_    ÔZEPAÔ_    Ô€authorizes€theÐ Ü Ü   ÐAttorney€General€of€the€State€of€Mitchell€to€prosecute€violators€of€the€Act.€€Ô_    ÔZEPAÔ_    Ô€states€inÐ ¤¤   Ðits€statutory€preamble€that€the€purpose€of€the€Act€is€to€ð ðreduce€the€risks€to€the€environmentÐ ll   Ðand€to€the€health€of€Mitchell€residents€caused€by€the€use€of€the€dangerous€substance€knownÐ 44   Ðas€Ô_    ÔZytronÔ_    Ô„28.ððÐ üü   ÐÌPlease€discuss€whether€Ô_    ÔZEPAÔ_    Ô€is€valid€under€the€federal€Constitution€as€applied€to€Olga€Ô_    ÔOckhamÔ_    Ô.Ð Œ Œ    ÐÌÌÓ   ÓQUESTION€II.€€€(Suggested€time:€7:45€„€8:30)Ð ää   ÐÓ  ¬  ÓÌIn€1993€Congress€held€hearings€on€the€health€risks€to€nonsmoking€workers€caused€by€exposure€to€ð ðsecond„hand€smokeðð€inÐ tt   Ðtheir€places€of€employment.€Representatives€of€the€Environmental€Protection€Agency€and€the€Occupational€Safety€andÐ ``   ÐHealth€Administration€testified€that€the€risks€from€second€smoke€are€serious€and€that€immediate€legislative€action€isÐ LL   Ðnecessary.€Among€other€things,€these€witnesses€urged€Congress€to€extend€any€smoking€ban€it€chose€to€enact€to€bars€andÐ 88   Ðrestaurants€because€ð ðwaitresses€bear€one€of€the€heaviest€burdens€of€cancer€and€respiratory€disease€among€workers€in€theÐ $$   Ðcountry.ððÐ    ÐÌAfter€the€close€of€the€hearings,€Congress€enacted,€and€the€President€signed,€the€Federal€Cigarette€Safety€Act€(Ô_    ÔFCSAÔ_    Ô).€Ô_    ÔFCSAÔ_    ÔÐ      Ðcontains€two€sections.Ð ŒŒ   ÐÌòòSection€1óó€€provides€in€part€as€follows:€ð ðSmoking€is€prohibited€in€all€indoor€places€of€employment,€including,€but€not€limitedÐ !!   Ðto,€factories,€office€buildings,€schools,€lounges,€cafeterias,€restaurants,€bars€and€hotels.€Any€employer€who€fails€to€correctÐ ""   Ðany€violation€coming€to€its€attention€shall€be€subject€to€a€fine€of€$10,000€per€incident.€Any€place€of€employment€owned€orÐ ô"ô"   Ðoperated€by€any€agency€of€State€or€local€government€shall€be€exempt€from€the€provisions€of€this€Section.ððÐ à#à#   ÐÌòòSection€2óó€provides€in€part€as€follows:€ð ðThe€Secretary€of€Transportation€shall€withhold€50%€of€the€federal€highway€fundsÐ p'p'   Ðotherwise€allocable€to€a€State€from€any€State€that€fails€to€enact€within€one€year€from€the€effective€date€of€this€Act€legislationÐ \(\(   Ðprohibiting€smoking€in€all€indoor€places€of€employment€owned€or€operated€by€any€agency€of€that€State.€€The€Secretary€shallÐ H)H)   Ðcontinue€any€such€withholding€from€a€State€for€a€period€of€ten€Ô_    Ôyears.ððÔ_    ÔÐ 4*4*   ÐÌIn€1992€the€total€amount€of€federal€financial€aid€to€the€states€for€highway€construction€and€maintenance€was€over€$15€billion.Ð Ä-Ä-   ÐÌPlease€discuss€and€resolve€the€issues€of€Constitutional€Law„„Powers€reasonably€raised€by€the€Ô_    ÔFCSAÔ_    Ô.€€Do€not€discuss€anyÐ T1T1!   Ðissue€of€Constitutional€Liberties.€Ð @2@2"   ЇÓ   ÓSAMPLE€ANSWERSÐ Ü Ü   ÐÓ   ÓòòQuestion€IóóÐ ¤¤   ÐÌBy€enacting€Ô_    ÔZEPAÔ_    Ô,€the€Mitchell€legislature€has€attempted€to€regulate€interstate€commerce.€€The€selling€of€tires€by€Ô_    ÔOckhamÔ_    ÔÐ 44   ÐTire€is€considered€to€be€interstate€commerce€because€the€tires€are€sold€throughout€the€United€States€and€thus€theirÐ      Ðproduction€and€sale€affects€states€other€than€Ô_    ÔWhatelyÔ_    Ô.Ð      ÐÌIn€deciding€whether€the€Mitchell€legislature€(Mitchell)€is€able€to€do€so,€the€Court€will€have€to€determine€if€the€states€power€toÐ œ œ    Ðregulate€commerce€in€this€instance€is€limited€by€U.S.€Congress€(Congress).€€This€law€by€Mitchell€is€not€void€under€theÐ ˆ ˆ    ÐSupremacy€Clause€Act.€VI€ðð2,€as€there€is€Ð t t   Ðno€federal€statute€yet€limiting€or€allowing€the€sale€of€the€tires€with€Ô_    ÔZytronÔ_    Ô€28.€€Were€there€such€a€law,€if€Mitchellððs€lawÐ <<   Ðretarded,€impeded€or€otherwise€stood€in€the€way€of€accomplishment€of€the€objectives€of€Congress€in€enacting€their€law,€theÐ ((   ÐMitchell€law€would€be€held€void€under€the€Supremacy€Clause€which€states€that€the€laws€of€the€United€States€are€theÐ    ÐSupreme€law€of€the€land.€€Since€that€is€not€the€case€here,€the€Court€would€then€have€to€decide€if€the€Mitchell€law€wereÐ      Ðpreempted€by€Congress.€Generally,€a€state€law€that€is€inconsistent€with€federal€law€will€be€preempted€by€that€federal€law,€asÐ ìì   Ðthere€would€be€a€direct€conflict€between€the€two.€€Since€there€is€no€law€here€by€Congress,€the€state€law€is€not€inconsistentÐ ØØ   Ðwith€federal€law.€A€state€law€can€also€be€preempted€when€there€is€no€direct€conflict€by€either€express€or€implied€preemption.€Ð ÄÄ   ÐUnder€express€preemption,€Congress€says€that€they€intend€to€preempt€the€state€by€their€regulation€or€will€tell€the€state€toÐ °°   Ðkeep€out€of€a€certain€area.€€Under€express€preemption,€the€state€law€does€not€necessarily€have€to€be€conflicting€with€federalÐ œœ   Ðlaw.€€Here,€Congress€has€not€expressed€any€intent€to€preempt€the€states,€a€study€was€merely€conducted€by€the€EPA.€Ð ˆˆ   ÐCongress€may€later€decide€to€act€but€until€that€time,€Mitchellððs€law€has€not€been€expressly€preempted.Ð tt   ÐÌUnder€implied€preemption,€a€state€law€may€be€void€in€either€of€two€circumstances.€€One,€where€the€federal€regulation€in€anÐ    Ðarea€is€so€pervasive€that€it€reasonably€appears€that€Congress€left€no€room€for€a€state€to€regulate;€there€is€said€to€be€fieldÐ ðð   Ðpreemption.€€Here€Congress,€apparently€has€not€regulated€this€field€in€such€a€way,€so€the€statute€of€Mitchell€is€notÐ ÜÜ   Ðpreempted.Ð ÈÈ   ÐÌSecond,€there€is€conflict€preemption€which€is€where€compliance€with€both€state€and€federal€regulations€would€be€a€physicalÐ X"X"   Ðimpossibility€or€the€state€regulation€is€an€obstacle€to€Congress€objectives.€€This€also€does€not€apply€here€because€CongressÐ D#D#   Ðhas€no€regulation€on€the€use€of€Ô_    ÔZytronÔ_    Ô€28.€€One€way€for€a€state€regulation€of€commerce€to€be€valid€is€for€Congress€to€haveÐ 0$0$   Ðconsented€to€such€regulation,€which€is€not€the€case€here.€€So€absent€preemption€and€consent,€the€Court€would€next€have€toÐ %%   Ðdetermine€if€the€stateððs€regulation€is€discriminatory€against€interstate€commerce.€€Discrimination€against€interstate€commerceÐ &&   Ðoccurs€when€a€regulation€singles€out€and€is€more€burdensome€on€interstate€commerce€than€it€is€on€comparable€localÐ ô&ô&   Ðcommerce.€€A€statute€can€be€discriminatory€on€its€face,€it€is€purpose€or€in€its€effect.Ð à'à'!   ÐÌHere,€Mitchellððs€statute€is€discriminatory€both€on€its€face€and€in€its€content.€€The€statute€completely€eliminates€the€ability€ofÐ p+p+#   Ðanyone€(Ô_    ÔOckhamÔ_    Ô)€manufacturing€tires€in€a€certain€way€(by€using€Ô_    ÔZytronÔ_    Ô€28)€from€manufacturing,€selling€or€distributing€tiresÐ \,\,$   Ðin€Mitchell.€€Complete€elimination€is€generally€considered€more€discriminatory€than€just€some€commercial€disadvantage.€€ThisÐ H-H-%   Ðstatute€appears€to€be€discriminatory,€so€the€court€will€then€analyze€the€statute€€under€either€the€strict€scrutiny€or€justificationÐ 4.4.&   Ðtests.€€Generally€discriminatory€statutes€are€almost€a€per€se€violation€of€the€commerce€clause,€but€can€be€saved€if€they€passÐ  / /'   Ðone€of€these€high€standards.Ð  0 0(   ÐÐ Ô1Ô1)   ÐThe€justification€test€requires€that€the€regulation€be€justifiable€because€there€is€a€legitimate€local€purpose€that€cannot€be€savedÐ Ü Ü   Ðby€nondiscriminatory€means.€€The€strict€scrutiny€test€looks€for€a€legitimate€local€purpose€and€whether€there€are€anyÐ ÈÈ   Ðnondiscriminatory€alternatives.€€Since€these€tests€are€essentially€the€same,€I€will€analyze€them€together.€Ð ´´   ÐÌThe€interest€of€Mitchell€here€is€two„fold.€€One,€they€would€like€to€protect€Ô_    ÔScotusÔ_    Ô€Corp.€from€bankruptcy,€thereby€savingÐ DD   Ð100,000€jobs€in€their€state.€€Two,€the€chemical€Ô_    ÔZytronÔ_    Ô€28€has€been€named€as€an€environmental€hazard€with€some€increasedÐ 00   Ðhealth€risks.€€Ð    ÐÌTheir€first€interest€would€most€likely€be€considered€economic€protectionism€which€is€generally€not€considered€a€legitimateÐ ¬ ¬    Ðstate€interest€and€therefore,€the€statute€would€fail.€€However,€since€Mitchell€has€this€other€interest€(even€though€it€does€notÐ ˜ ˜   Ðappear€to€be€their€major€purposeð"ðmore€like€a€mere€convenienceð"ðthey€are€likely€to€cite€it€as€one€of€their€interests)€ofÐ „ „   Ðprotecting€the€states€environment€and€the€health€of€their€citizens.€€These€interests€fail€when€the€stateððs€police€powers€underÐ pp   Ðthe€10th€amendment€are€considered€valid€state€interests€by€the€court.€€The€state€is€the€only€governmental€entity€with€theÐ \\   Ðpower€to€protect€these€interests€and€therefore€the€states€are€given€some€latitude€in€this€area.€€So,€since€one€of€MitchellððsÐ HH   Ðpurposes€is€legit,€the€statute€would€pass€the€first€part€of€the€tests.€€Ð 44   ÐÌThe€court€would€then€have€to€decide€if€there€are€any€nondiscriminatory€alternatives€to€this€statute.€€Generally,€if€there€areÐ ÄÄ   Ðsuch€alternatives,€it€will€undermine€the€necessity€of€the€regulation.€€Since€the€EPA€has€determined€this€method€to€beÐ °°   Ðhazardous€it€is€not€likely€that€there€are€any€nondiscriminatory€alternatives€for€keeping€the€manufacturing€process€out€ofÐ œœ   ÐMitchell.€€But,€since€it€is€manufacturing€process€itself,€and€not€the€final€product€which€have€been€determined€to€be€hazardous,Ð ˆˆ   Ðit€seems€as€though€a€less€discriminatory€alternative€is€available.€€Mitchell€could€just€as€effectively€protect€its€environment€andÐ tt   Ðcitizens€by€prohibiting€the€manufacturer€of€anything€using€Ô_    ÔZytronÔ_    Ô€28€in€its€state.€€This€would€be€less€discriminatory€againstÐ ``   Ðinterstate€commerce€since€the€sales€could€continue.€€€If€the€disposal€of€the€tires€later€turns€out€to€be€hazardous€they€couldÐ LL   Ðregulate€in€that€area.€€So,€although€the€states€interests€are€great,€there€are€less€discriminatory€alternatives€so€the€statuteÐ 88   Ðwould€likely€be€invalidated.Ð $$   ÐÌIf€the€Court€were€to€follow€the€approach€in€òòBendix,óó€where€they€departed€from€the€norm€and€applied€the€balancing€test€in€aÐ ´´   Ðsituation€where€the€statute€was€discriminatory,€the€result€may€be€different.€€The€balancing€test€first€asks€the€thresholdÐ        Ðquestions€of€whether€there€is€a€burden€on€interstate€commerce.€€Here€there€clearly€is€a€burden€as€the€manufacturerððs€sale€andÐ Œ!Œ!   Ðdistribution€of€these€products€has€been€prohibited.€€The€test€then€goes€on€to€determine€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€burden.€Ð x"x"   ÐHere€the€nature€of€the€burden€is€of€local€concern€since€it€merely€prohibits€the€sale€of€these€products€in€their€state,€it€does€notÐ d#d#   Ðhinder€such€sales€in€other€states.€€Local€concerns€do€not€weigh€as€heavily€against€regulation€as€do€national€matters.€€TheÐ P$P$   Ðextent€of€this€burden€however€is€greatð!ðtotal€prohibition€of€this€product,€not€merely€a€limitation.Ð <%<%   ÐÌThen€the€interests,€state€and€national€must€be€balanced.€€As€stated€above,€the€states€interest€is€legit.€€The€national€interest€ofÐ Ì(Ì("   Ðprotecting€interstate€commerce€may€very€well€outweigh€the€stateððs€interest€here.€€Although€further€weight€is€give€to€statutesÐ ¸)¸)#   Ðthat€further€safety€and€health€concerns,€as€stated€above,€there€are€less€burdensome€ways€for€the€state€to€protect€the€health€ofÐ ¤*¤*$   Ðits€citizens.€€Ð ++%   ÐI€feel€that€the€statute€would€fail€under€this€test€as€well.Ð X-X-&   ÐÌIf€the€court€finds€somehow€that€this€statute€is€not€discriminatory€then€the€balancing€test€would€generally€be€used€here.€€AsÐ è0è0(   Ðanalyzed€above,€this€statute€would€likely€fail€under€such€a€standard.€€However,€in€some€instances,€the€rational€basis€test€willÐ Ô1Ô1)   Ðbe€used€here.€€This€test€asks€only€if€the€ends€are€legitð!ðwhich€they€have€been€determined€to€be€above€and€whether€the€meansÐ Ü Ü   Ðare€rationally€related€to€the€ends.€€Here€the€deference€to€the€leg.€is€very€great€and€Mitchellððs€statute€would€probably€stand€asÐ ÈÈ   Ðtheir€means€of€meeting€their€legit.€interest€of€protecting€their€citizens€was€rational.€€So,€unless€the€rational€basis€test€is€used,Ð ´´   Ðthe€statute€will€likely€fail.Ð      ÐÌÔ_    ÔOckhamÔ_    Ô€may€raise€an€argument€that€the€statute€violates€the€Privileges€and€Immunities€Clause€(Art.€IV€ðð2)€(P&I)€whichÐ 00   Ðallows€the€citizens€of€one€state€to€be€entitled€to€the€P&Is€of€the€several€states.Ð    ÐÌP&I€only€applies€to€those€interests€which€are€considered€fundamental.€€A€fundamental€interest€is€one€which€is€sufficientlyÐ ¬ ¬    Ðnecessary€to€the€livelihood€of€the€nation€and€affects€interstate€harmony.€€One€of€these€interests€is€the€pursuit€of€a€trade.€Ð ˜ ˜   ÐÔ_    ÔOckhamÔ_    Ô€could€argue€that€she€is€pursuing€her€trade€by€selling€in€......€€Ô ‡%  ¼äf » X% X06 Ôò òrest€of€answer€is€missing.ó óÔ# †%  X06 X »% ¼äfBI # Ô