Question: A state has recently enacted a statute prohibiting the sale of beer in glass bottles. In accordance with the new law, all beer consumed within the state must be sold in aluminum cans that are recyclable. There is a provision of the statute that does permit breweries to distribute beer to bars, taverns, and restaurants in kegs for "on-site" consumption by patrons. Before the passage of the law, approximately 28% of all beer consumed in the state was packaged in glass bottles. Of that total, 75% of the beer was bottled outside the state, while 25% was bottled by companies in-state. The legislature passed the law at the strong urging of the aluminum can industry. It was estimated that one aluminum company alone spent over $5,000,000 in its lobbying campaign for the passage of the bill. Ironically, the new law even received strong support from environmentalists who believed that recyclable cans would help prevent littering and unsightly trash accumulation. The strongest federal constitutional argument against the validity of the law is that it violates the
A: equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against beer bottlers.
B: privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing out-of-state beer bottlers from conducting their business in the state.
C: commerce clause by violating the negative implications on interstate commerce.
D: contracts clause by impairing the ability of beer bottlers to honor existing contracts for the sale of bottled beer in the stat Write exactly 5 paragraphs each separated with two new lines answering this question. The first paragraph must start with "proactive".
user