Question

The City of Savannah opened the Georgia Heritage Amusement Park to compete with private amusement parks. They charged $50 a day for Georgia and South Carolina residents and $75 a day for all others. Henrietta, a resident of Alabama, has challenged the policy in federal court on constitutional grounds. What result? Multiple Choice The policy is constitutional, states may discriminate against residents of other states under the Morket Participont Exception. The policy is unconstitutional, states may not discriminate against residents of other states under the Privileges \& immunities Clause. The policy is unconstitutional, states may not discriminate against residents of other states under the Market. Participant Exception.

Answer 1

The constitutionality of Savannah's amusement park pricing policy is under scrutiny for charging Alabama residents like Henrietta more than residents of Georgia and South Carolina. Under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, this practice could be considered unconstitutional. Yet, there are some exceptions where out-of-state residents can legally be charged more for certain services.

Step-by-step explanation:

The constitutionality of the City of Savannah's pricing policy for its Georgia Heritage Amusement Park is challenged by Henrietta, a resident of Alabama. The policy charged different rates based on whether visitors were from Georgia or South Carolina versus visitors from other states like Alabama.

According to the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, states are prohibited from discriminating against citizens of other states. This clause is intended to ensure that out-of-state citizens enjoy the same fundamental rights as state residents. However, there are some exceptions to this clause, as states can sometimes charge non-residents higher fees for certain services, especially if these services are funded by state taxpayers, such as public universities charging higher tuition for out-of-state students.

The outcome in federal court could be that the policy is unconstitutional because it discriminates against residents of other states by charging them a higher fee solely based on residency, which could be seen as a violation of their privileges and immunities. Nevertheless, the law does allow for certain distinctions to be made based on residency, so the final legal determination would depend on the nuances of the case and the interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause.