Taxpayers in the state of Kentucky alleged that a tax on out-of-state municipal bonds that excluded interest from in-state bonds was a violation of the commerce clause. Representatives of the state argued that the tax reflected a traditional government function that could persist without any differential treatment of local interests against the similar interests of out-of-state-entities. Additionally, because Kentucky itself participates in the bond market, its potential discrimination should be found allowable. How would you have ruled in this case? Why? [Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Geroge W Davis, 553 U. S. 328 (2008).]