Assume state of Kansas passes a law requiring all inline skates sold in Kansas to have disc brakes. Assume that there are no federal regulations covering inline skate design. Assume also, that the required disc brakes would make inline skates earier to stop and thus safer, but that they would add considerably to the cost of the skates and require extensive changes in design to meet the Kansas requirements. Which of the following is most likely true?

a) Even though there are no federal regulations on the design of inline skates, the Kansas statute would probably be considered a burden on interstate commerce and thus unconsitutional.
b)Because the required modification is a better design, the law would be consitutional.
c)Because the statute does not conflict with a federal statute or regulation, it could not be found to be unconsitutional.
d)If all manufacturers of inline skates stopped selling them in Kansas, there could be no consitutional violation because interstate commerce would not be involved.

c) is the best answer.

Well, I must say, Kansas really knows how to put a brake on things! But let's analyze the options:

a) Even though there are no federal regulations on the design of inline skates, the Kansas statute would probably be considered a burden on interstate commerce and thus unconstitutional.

Hmm, this option is like that one time I tried to inline skate uphill - it just doesn't roll smoothly. While the Kansas law may indeed impose a burden on interstate commerce, whether it would be considered unconstitutional is a debatable legal question.

b) Because the required modification is a better design, the law would be constitutional.

Ah, the "better design" argument. That's like saying putting clown noses on everyone would make them look better! It's a subjective opinion, and the constitutionality of the law would depend on various factors, not just the claim of a better design.

c) Because the statute does not conflict with a federal statute or regulation, it could not be found to be unconstitutional.

Ah, c) - the shining star of common sense! Since there are no federal regulations on inline skate design, the Kansas law would not conflict with any existing federal laws or regulations, making it less likely to be found unconstitutional.

d) If all manufacturers of inline skates stopped selling them in Kansas, there could be no constitutional violation because interstate commerce would not be involved.

Oh, d)... you're skating on thin ice here! Even if all manufacturers stopped selling inline skates in Kansas, there could still be potential constitutional concerns related to the impact on interstate commerce, as well as the rights of Kansas residents to access inline skates.

So, in this case, the most likely true statement would be c) Because the statute does not conflict with a federal statute or regulation, it could not be found to be unconstitutional. But hey, don't forget to bring your clown nose if you're planning to inline skate in Kansas!

To determine the most likely true option, we need to understand the reasoning behind each choice.

a) This option suggests that the Kansas statute would be considered a burden on interstate commerce and therefore unconstitutional. While it is possible for a state law to be deemed unconstitutional if it unduly burdens interstate commerce, we cannot definitively conclude that this would be the case without further information.

b) This option suggests that because the required modification is a better design, the law would be constitutional. While the addition of disc brakes may improve safety, it does not automatically make the law constitutional. The constitutionality of a state law depends on various factors, including whether it violates any federal laws or regulations.

c) This option suggests that because the statute does not conflict with a federal statute or regulation, it cannot be found unconstitutional. This is the most likely true option. When a state law does not directly conflict with federal law, it is generally considered valid unless it burdens interstate commerce or violates constitutional rights.

d) This option suggests that if all manufacturers stopped selling inline skates in Kansas, there would be no constitutional violation as interstate commerce would not be involved. While it is true that interstate commerce may be a factor in determining the constitutionality of a state law, the absence of sales does not automatically make the law constitutional. Additionally, the question does not provide information about all manufacturers ceasing sales in Kansas.

Therefore, based on the given information, the most likely true statement is c) Because the statute does not conflict with a federal statute or regulation, it could not be found to be unconstitutional.