Statement of Facts The following are the facts on the four cases for the Congressional Laws. The first case is on Farmer v. Higgins which was filed in October 24, 1986 with Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The prosecutor wanted to be granted legal rights to make and licences a machine gun for personal use. This request was denied by the bureau because Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 prohibits manufacturing of machine guns to be owned by private individuals. Farmer then filed declaratory judgment as well as writ of mandamus compelling for the approval of his request, by the district court, on the basis of National Firearms Act . The ruling was, however, reversed by the court of appeal holding that section 922(o) prohibited private ownership of machine guns. In a related case of United States v. Lopez , the court ruled that under the commerce clause the state had the authority to regulate all persons, activities, and or products within its state boundaries. The other selected case is California v. Texas the Supreme Court of the United States upheld that individuals are mandated to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by characterising the consequences of failure to purchase health insurance as tax. This contradicted the constitution since the Congress has powers for imposing such penalties. In 2017, the Congress in which the majority were Republicans amended the ACA and decided that there was no negative implication for not purchasing the insurance but did not interfere with the Act. The Republican era, especially during the presidency of Donald Trump was characterised by significant opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Texas, a few people and some states filed a law suit challenging the personal mandate stating that with a zero penalty it is no longer classified as a tax and is thus unconstitutional. The state of California joined in defence of individual mandate. The ruling of the federal government was that the individual mandate had become unconstitutional rendering the whole ACA invalid since the act cannot survive without individual mandate. The third case is on South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. in which the prosecutor required out-of-state sellers to remit and also take the sales tax the same way as businesses with the same physical presence in the state. Justice Kennedy proposed doing away with “physical presence standard and replace it, in all likelihood, with some sort of measurement based on an out-of-state vendor’s economic presence in the state” (Smith, 2017, p. 834). This will make the company to have some tax obligation to the state. The current order stipulates that the entrepreneurs give the tax to the Department of Revenue. Therefore, failure to remit the tax is solved by in-state consumers being separately responsible to pay for use tax at the same rate. In this case, Wayfair, Inc., Newegg, Inc. and Overstock.com, Inc. were enterprises without real estate or employees in South Dakota. The Wayfair, Inc was the leading enterprise with high revenues stream from its sales. In 2016, South Dakota passed Senate Bill 106 which mandated out-of-state merchants to pay sales tax if their transactions surpassed $100,000 yearly or if they finalized above 200 dealings in South Dakota yearly (Oyen, 2017). South Dakota filed a