Question 1
First, the meaning of a statute must be established. This must be done from the language in which it is outlined. To begin with, it is the duty of the judges to give effects and ascertain the intent of the legislature in approving the statute from the language because this could ease their efforts of deriving the legislative’s intent behind the statute. In cases where the legislative intent is apparent from the statute language, the judges have a duty to apply the laws on its face without using case law to determine the purpose and intent of the statute. Conversely, there are situations when the judges may depend on to determine the legislative intent. The first is when there is doubt as to whether the intent of the legislation behind the statute, for instance, when the statute is ambiguous or in a case where the intent cannot be established from the statute’s language. Secondly, the judges may rely on case law to ascertain the intent of a statute where strict adherence to the plain meaning or the letter of the statute would cause absurd interpretation of the legislative intent. Reference to the case law in the circumstances mentioned above will help the judge to refer to clarifications and interpretations of the legal provisions made in the past. Case laws are beneficial as they also provide precedence on the way in which laws are to be understood depending on how prior cases have been decided. These decisions allow the judges to use such interpretations and precedents on cases to be handled in the future.
Reference
California State Restaurant Association. V. Witlow (1976) 129 Cal. Rptr. 824 58 CA .3d 340.
Question 2
Surely, it would be a violation of the equal protection act for the state to impose higher tax on out-of-state companies with the sole reason of protecting local firms. A tax imposed on the out-of-state companies would infringe the liberty of some persons who run out-of-state businesses. This will deprive some people from carrying out their business activities within foreign States. This could alternatively affect the economy of the state that implements such discriminatory fiscal policies as jobs will be lost, and quality of goods and services will be compromised. The constitution of America provides for equality in all aspects of business. The Equal Protecting Act provides that no state shall deny to anybody within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This law validates the provisions of equality that is contained in the Civil Rights Act of the year 1866, which guarantees that all people have rights similar to those of the white citizens. Therefore according to this legislation it is unfair to hinder anybody from within or from without the state from carrying out his or her business activities anywhere by use of any financial policy. The act of protecting local state businesses from out-of-state competition is not a legitimate or a genuine objective of the government. Thus, such a tax would violate the equal protection clause.
Reference
Nelson, W. E. (1988). The Fourteenth Amendment: from political principle to judicial doctrine. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Question 3
Yes, the Supreme Court can refuse to hear the case.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is the highest and has final appellate jurisdiction over all state court and over all federal court cases that involve the issues of federal laws and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. Section 2 of Article Three of the Constitution of the United States shapes the authority of the federal courts of the United States.
The supreme court of the U.S can only review the final ruling of the state courts after a party exhausts all the options available up to a point where the request for relief from the state’s highest court of appeal, if the justice believes that the case involves an important matter on federal law or constitutional law. The Supreme Court g does not review rulings made by the state courts that involve mostly the resolution of a state law issue. The nature of Jay’s case of appeal does not qualify to be heard by the Supreme Court as justified by the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts. Jay’s case qualifies to be a legal civil case as it involves common law or civil law, in which there is a dispute between Jay and the employer. Jay may also incur losses as a result of his employer terminating his job. Hence, this fully qualifies Jay’s case as a civil case. The matter of dispute in Jay’s case does not involve an issue of the federal law or of the constitution. The Supreme Court of the U.S then has no jurisdiction to hear his case, even if he has exhausted the legal options of appeal provided to him by the laws of the State. He may suffer losses due to the termination of her contract, but the decision made by the highest appellate court concerning civil cases that do not involve a federal law, stands to be respected. Therefore, Jay has to give in to the ruling made by the appellate court of the state as the Supreme Court cannot hear his appeal as he desires.
Reference
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Guideline. (n.d.). Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/jurisdiction-of-supreme-court.
References
California State Restaurant Association. V. Witlow (1976) 129 Cal. Rptr. 824 58 CA .3d 340.
Nelson, W. E. (1988). The Fourteenth Amendment: from political principle to judicial doctrine. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Guideline. (n.d.). Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/jurisdiction-of-supreme-court.
