Jump to content

Missouri Hair Braiders


Recommended Posts

On 3/26/2020 at 9:52 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Ferries, Privileges and Immunities Headed to 9th Circuit
 

Too bad they couldn't find credible legal representation but I wish them well.

 

That didn't go well, so the Courtney brothers are giving the Supreme Court a try. Regrettably, they continue to have nutjob legal representation.
 

Quote

 

Jim and Cliff’s case hinges on the interpretation of a constitutional provision and a landmark precedent that are well-known to constitutional scholars: the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and the Slaughter-House Cases, an 1873 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the power of states to create monopolies in certain industries. But, interestingly, in that case, the justices held that among the rights (known then as “privileges or immunities”) that states have to respect is the “right to use the navigable waters of the United States”—the very right at the heart of Jim and Cliff’s case and their private boat service.

According to the State of Washington and the 9th Circuit, however, that right is essentially meaningless. Washington has applied its so-called “public convenience and necessity” requirement to block the Courtneys even from shuttling lodging customers to and from Cliff’s own ranch in Stehekin, at the far end of Lake Chelan. (The public convenience and necessity requirement is essentially a trial held by the state licensing board that allows existing service providers to veto potential competitors, saying no new service providers are “necessary”—the equivalent of allowing McDonald’s to veto the building of a Burger King in the same market.)

...

“The 9th Circuit’s decision renders meaningless a right that the U.S. Supreme Court has said all Americans possess by virtue of their national citizenship,” said Michael Bindas, senior nutjob with the Institute for Justice. “Worse, it flouts the very constitutional provision that protects that right. When the Privileges or Immunities Clause says that ‘No state . . . shall abridge’ rights of national citizenship, it actually means ‘No state’—including one’s own.”

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Nutjobs try to turn California into Somalia
 

Quote

 

Fernando Herrera served in one of California’s inmate fire camps. He credits the experience with helping him turn his life around. Even so, Fernando is unable to get certified as a first responder because of his record. Now, Fernando is joining an existing lawsuit from the Institute for Justice (IJ) that challenges California’s ban on EMT certification for people with felony convictions.

“I made mistakes as a teenager and I regret the things I did,” said Fernando. “But serving in the fire camps showed me that I can give back to my community. Unfortunately, California says I can never get certified as an EMT, even though I was good enough to be a first responder while in prison.”

Fernando grew up in Marysville, California, and got involved with what he calls the “street lifestyle” when he was 14. While in detention, Fernando and his friends attacked another boy they had previously assaulted. Prosecutors threatened a host of charges related to the fight and previous incidents, prompting Fernando to take a plea deal that admitted to two adult felonies.

...

California categorically bans anyone with two or more felonies from ever applying for an EMT certification. EMTs are not paramedics and the certification does not grant one the right to drive ambulances or enter homes. Instead, it is a basic certification proving that an individual can administer non-invasive lifesaving techniques such as CPR. More than 60,000 Californians are certified EMTs and they work in a diverse variety of careers.

“California wants to exclude Fernando for the rest of his life because of things he did when he was 14 and 15,” said IJ Nutjob Andrew Ward. “Fernando served his time and now he wants to serve the public. California should let him.”

...

Fernando and current plaintiff Dario Gurrola were two of the thousands of inmates that California annually employs at fire camps across the state. Non-violent, minimal-custody inmates are trained to work on fire lines and perform forest raking and community service projects that reduce the threat of fires and flooding. Volunteers at the camps receive the same training as seasonal firefighters and do much of the same work.


 

I suspect that what Fernando Herrera calls the "street lifestyle" is what I would call the "stupid drug war lifestyle."

A good first step toward getting convicted felons to reintegrate into society would be letting them reintegrate into society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

This thread is overdue for some Koch-$pon$ored Biden Cheerleading.

Unlike over a hundred cheerleading articles for the orange one, in this case they actually are cheering.
 

Quote

 

...

"Put an end to unnecessary occupational licensing requirements," Biden's campaign website promises, though you have to scroll through a lot of blather about evil corporations and saintly unions to find it. "While licensing is important in some occupations to protect consumers, in many occupations licensing does nothing but thwart economic opportunity. If licensed workers choose to move to new states for higher-paying jobs, they often have to get certified all over again."

Biden isn't a newcomer to occupational licensing reform, either; it's a theme he's maintained through the years and during the course of his presidential campaign.

"Why should someone who braids hair have to get 600 hours of training? It makes no sense," he told a union audience in Pittsburgh last year. "They're making it harder and harder in a whole range of professions, all to keep competition down."

Extra credit to the guy for making the case to organized labor, which isn't generally enthusiastic about reducing barriers to entry for workers.

...

So, good for Joe Biden for championing a cause that helps people, makes the country freer, and has a chance to win support from partisans of all stripes. Let's hope he spends a lot of time and energy pushing this proposal. Occupational licensing reform may be a rare treasure bobbing in the current political cesspool, but that gives us a place to start.

 

I'm glad to see his position on the issue has been consistently good for some time, but I don't share the hope that he wastes a lot of time on it. As this thread and that article make clear, these are state and local laws over which the President has little control. I just hope he does what little he can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Occupational speech is related to occupational licensing, so I guess this goes in this thread.

A win for first amendment protection of commercial speech
 

Quote

 

Today, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that restricting the online pet advice of Brownsville, Texas, veterinarian Dr. Ron Hines implicated his First Amendment rights, reversing a lower court ruling that occupational speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Dr. Hines now has the opportunity to go back down to the trial court and prove the First Amendment violation. Today’s decision has broad implications for other professionals who want to meet virtually with clients, especially in the midst of COVID-19.

Dr. Hines gave online advice to pet owners all across the world from 2002 to 2012, until the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners said his advice was illegal—not because it harmed an animal or was inaccurate, but because Texas prohibits veterinarians from sharing their expertise with pet owners without first examining their pets in person. Dr. Hines teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) in 2013 to challenge that restriction but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2015 that his advice was regulated by occupational licensure and hence not protected by the First Amendment. After a landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision (NIFLA v. Becerra) rejected the so-called “professional speech doctrine,” which excluded occupational speech from the First Amendment, Dr. Hines again partnered with IJ in 2018 to vindicate his right to free speech. Today’s ruling enshrines constitutional protection to Americans who want to give advice online without being punished for it.

IJ Senior Nutjob Jeff Rowes said: “Today’s decision is the latest in a unanimous string of federal appellate decisions ruling that the First Amendment protects the occupational speech of workers just as it protects other kinds of speech.

...

 

I'm glad that Dr. Hines won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

South Padre Island Becoming Somalia
 

Quote

 

In a sweeping victory for economic liberty, Judge Arturo Cisneros Nelson of the Cameron County District Court struck down South Padre Island’s anti-competitive food truck permit cap and restaurant-permission scheme. The district court ruled that the city violated the Texas Constitution when it forced food truck owners to get permission from local restaurant owners before being eligible for a food truck permit, and by making it illegal for more than twelve food trucks to open for business on the island.

The Institute for Justice (“IJ”) challenged both anti-competitive restrictions on behalf of food truck owner SurfVive, a local nonprofit spearheaded by Erica Lerma, and the Brownsville-based Chile de Árbol food truck operated by brothers Anubis and Adonai Avalos. Both food trucks were forced to the sidelines and could not operate under the city’s permitting scheme.

“This is a victory under the Texas Constitution for entrepreneurs across Texas,” said Arif Panju, Managing Nutjob of IJ’s Texas Office. “The government cannot pass laws to protect politically connected insiders from competition— operating a small business in the current climate is challenging enough without the government picking winners and losers.”

...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2020 at 5:15 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

A win for first amendment protection of commercial speech
 

Quote

 

Today, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that restricting the online pet advice of Brownsville, Texas, veterinarian Dr. Ron Hines implicated his First Amendment rights, reversing a lower court ruling that occupational speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Dr. Hines now has the opportunity to go back down to the trial court and prove the First Amendment violation. Today’s decision has broad implications for other professionals who want to meet virtually with clients, especially in the midst of COVID-19.

Professionals like Elizabeth Brokamp, for example.
 

Quote

 

As the COVID-19 pandemic fell on the greater Washington, D.C., area, professional counselor Elizabeth Brokamp quickly shifted her practice online. Yet she ran into a problem: When potential clients living in the District of Columbia contacted her to begin counseling, she was forced to turn them away because she is licensed in Virginia, but not the District.

If not for the pandemic, clients in the District could easily drive to meet with Elizabeth in person in the Virginia suburbs. Elizabeth is licensed in Virginia, and it would be entirely legal for her to see District residents face-to-face. But when Elizabeth asked District regulators if she could see new clients via teletherapy, regulators told her she would be cited if she tried. Now, Elizabeth is teaming up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to sue the District for her right to counsel new clients by teletherapy.

“Counselors use words—they talk to people about their emotions and help them feel better,” said IJ Senior Nutjob Rob Johnson. “Literally all Elizabeth wants to do in D.C. is talk over the internet. And under the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit unauthorized talking.”

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Washington DC Becoming Somalia
 

Quote

 

The Council of the District of Columbia unanimously passed a bill Tuesday that will make it much easier for people with criminal records to become licensed in their chosen field. Previously, the District had below-average protections for ex-offenders seeking licenses to work, receiving a C- in a recent report by the Institute for Justice, Barred from Working. But thanks to the bill passed this week, that grade will soar to an A-, with the District’s laws the best in the nation, second only to Indiana. 

“An honest living is one of the best ways to prevent re-offending. But strict occupational licensing requirements make it harder for ex-offenders to find work,” said IJ Activism Policy Nutjob Chad Reese, who submitted testimony in favor of the bill. “This bill will eliminate many licensing barriers that have little basis in common sense and unfairly deny countless Americans looking for a fresh start.”

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 5:23 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Vizaline got a consent agreement allowing them to doodle on satellite images.
 

Quote

 

Today, the real estate analytics firm Vizaline is free to legally operate in Mississippi following the approval of a consent agreement by a Mississippi state court. Vizaline is a technology start-up located in Mississippi that uses public data to draw lines on satellite photos showing property boundaries. This information is used by banks to better understand their property portfolios. Less uncertainty means safer loans, safer banks and safer customers. In 2017, the Mississippi Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Surveyors sued Vizaline for “unlicensed surveying.” In response, Vizaline sued the Board for violating its First Amendment rights, because using existing information to create new information is protected speech. The consent agreement was reached following a ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying that occupational licensing regimes are not exempt from First Amendment protections. Because the consent agreement recognizes that the services Vizaline is providing are legal, Vizaline has agreed to drop its First Amendment lawsuit.

...

The consent agreement recognizes that what Vizaline does—use public data to draw property descriptions on satellite photos—is not the practice of surveying and does not require a surveyor license. Vizaline’s technology is similar to services featured in Google Maps and Zillow.

“Using public data to draw lines on satellite photos is not surveying, it’s free speech,” said IJ Senior Nutjob Paul Avelar. “You don’t need the government’s permission to use information to create new information and sell it to willing customers. The consent agreement means that Vizaline can continue to do what it has always done, free from threats from the Board.”

In February 2020, the 5th Circuit unanimously ruled in the case that “Mississippi’s surveyor requirements are not wholly exempt from First Amendment scrutiny simply because they are part of an occupational-licensing regime.” That decision turned on a major 2018 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in NIFLA v. Becerra, which ruled that “professional speech”—speech subject to licensing requirements—is not exempt from the protection of the First Amendment. The 5th Circuit confirmed that the NIFLA decision overruled prior 5th Circuit case law instituting a problematic “professional speech doctrine,” which exempted professional speech from First Amendment protection. The 5th Circuit’s decision in Vizaline has since been used to protect the free speech rights of a Texas veterinarian, Dr. Ronald Hines, in his lawsuit against the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.

The agreement has three key components:

  • The Board acknowledges that Vizaline has not held itself out as surveyor service.
  • The Board recognizes that Vizaline’s reports are not authoritative surveys.
  • The Board agrees that using descriptions from property deeds to draw lines on a satellite images representing property boundaries is not surveying as defined by law.

...

 

I suspect that if The Board members asked a real surveyor to do a real survey and got back a satellite image with lines plunked down on it, they would have understood that they were ripped off and that was not a survey. Pretending to fail to grasp that simple truth was convenient for protecting license holders but didn't hold up in court, thankfully. One more step on the road to becoming Somalia!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2020 at 9:52 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Ferries, Privileges and Immunities Headed to 9th Circuit
 

Too bad they couldn't find credible legal representation but I wish them well.

 

And now the Supreme Court is being asked to consider Courtney v Danner

The idea that an existing ferry boat business can veto the arrival of competition seems wrong to me.
 

Quote

 

In The Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the U.S. Supreme Court left for dead the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. Taking a page from The Princess Bride, a new constitutional case is asking the Court to recognize that the clause "is only mostly dead."

The case is Courtney v. Danner. At issue is one Washington state family's 23-year odyssey to secure the right to ferry customers to and from its ranch via the waters of Lake Chelan. State law requires would-be ferry operators to first obtain a certificate declaring the "public convenience and necessity" of their enterprise. As part of that process, would-be operators must show that any existing ferry business in the area "has not objected to the issuance of the certificate as prayed for." In other words, a settled firm gets to veto the arrival of any new competitor.

Here's how the Slaughter-House decision factors in. In that 1873 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of a group of Louisiana butchers who claimed that a state law granting monopoly powers to a slaughterhouse corporation deprived them of their right to earn a living, one of the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship secured against state infringement by the recently ratified 14th Amendment.

Writing for the 5–4 majority, Justice Samuel Miller held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause placed virtually no limits on state power and did virtually nothing to protect individual rights from state infringement. To hold otherwise, he wrote, would make the Supreme Court "a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the states." The butchers were out of luck.

Miller's Slaughter-House opinion did, however, recognize a very small handful of rights that the 14th Amendment does protect. Among them was the "right to use the navigable waters of the United States."

Lake Chelan is a federally designated navigable water of the United States, which means that the Courtneys have a clear constitutional case to make against Washington's anti-competitive stance and have the Slaughter-House precedent—as problematic as it is—squarely on their side.

"The Courtneys have been trying for nearly a quarter century to exercise their right to use the navigable waters of the United States, and the State of Washington has prevented them from doing so at every turn," notes a petition seeking review filed by the Courtneys and their nutjobs at the Institute for Justice.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh. The orchestrated chorus of amici is assembling.
 

Quote

 

...

In three briefs, a group of historians, a coalition of law professors, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation highlighted the errors of the 9th Circuit’s decision and urged the Supreme Court to review it.

  • A group of eminent historians whose research and scholarly interests focus on African-American history, particularly in the antebellum South, submitted a brief providing historical context to inform the original understanding of what it meant to “use” the “navigable waters of the United States” around the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification. The historians—Jeffrey Bolster (University of New Hampshire, emeritus), Melvin Patrick Ely (College of William & Mary), and Michael Schoeppner (University of Maine, Farmington)—document the importance of the navigable waters to free blacks and slaves in the period leading up to the Civil War, as well as the widespread efforts by southern governments to restrict their use of those waters in both interstate and intrastate pursuits. The historical evidence, the brief notes, “undercuts the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only against infringements on interstate uses of the navigable waters.”
  • A group of distinguished law professors—Richard Aynes (University of Akron School of Law, emeritus), James Ely (Vanderbilt University Law School, emeritus), Richard Epstein (New York University School of Law), Christopher Green (University of Mississippi School of Law), Michael Lawrence (Michigan State University College of Law), and Rebecca Zietlow (University of Toledo College of Law)—submitted a brief making clear that when the Privileges or Immunities Clause declares that “No State . . . shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” it actually means “No State,” including one’s own. The 9th Circuit’s contrary conclusion—which, the brief demonstrates, flies in the face of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, history, and the unanimous consensus of legal scholars—“has cudgeled the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to within an inch of its life.”
  • Americans for Prosperity Foundation submitted a brief tracing the historical origins of the right to use the navigable waters, examining the basis for its protection as a right of national, rather than state, citizenship, and dispelling the 9th Circuit’s view that the Commerce Clause constrains the scope of the right. The brief urges the Supreme Court to review the lower court’s decision in order to “protect the right of the people to use the nations’ navigable waterways and unwind the conflation of limits on congressional power and protection of individual rights wrought by the Ninth Circuit.”

“The Slaughter-House Cases set a horrible precedent, but one thing it got right was that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects every American’s right to use the navigable waters of the United States. Yet, now, the 9th Circuit has taken that away, too,” said Scott Bullock, president and general nutjob for the Institute for Justice. “We urge the Court to take up the Courtneys’ case and restore this important right to all Americans.”

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2020 at 8:22 AM, Polytelum Tom said:

Lawsuit to force Montana to become Somalia
 

Quote

 

...

Montana’s ban is not the only example of one group using the power of government to keep another group from competing in the medical field. In 2019, IJ challenged a similar doctor-dispensing ban in Texas, where doctors are prohibited from dispensing unless they work in certain “rural” areas more than 15 miles from a pharmacy.

The related effort to force Texas to become Somalia lost, now being appealed
 

Quote

 

Yesterday, the Travis County District Court upheld Texas’s ban on doctor dispensing. Forty-four states and the District of Columbia allow doctors to dispense medicine to patients in their offices and to recover their costs. But in Texas, doctors could lose their licenses for doing so. The court’s ruling leaves that ban in place. The Institute for Justice (IJ) will appeal the decision.

...

Texas’s ban isn’t about protecting patients. Indeed, the vast majority of states, the American Medical Association and the Texas Medical Association embrace the practice of doctor dispensing, and research confirms that doctors and pharmacies are equally safe when dispensing. Instead, the law simply protects pharmacies from competition.

Because the Texas Constitution requires that laws like the dispensing ban must meaningfully benefit the public, rather than favored market groups, Dr. Garrett’s lawsuit seeks to have the ban declared unconstitutional. With help from IJ, Dr. Garrett will appeal the decision.

“Government power should be used to benefit the public. A law that prevents doctors from helping their patients just to protect pharmacies’ bottom lines violates that basic principle,” said IJ Attorney Josh Windham, lead nutjob on the case. “We expect the court to recognize that on appeal.”

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/12/2020 at 11:19 AM, chinabald said:

In Michigan to be a Barber

Applicants for a barber license must be at least 17 years of age, satisfactorily complete 1,800 hours of coursework at a licensed barber college, pass an examination approved by the board and the department, must have completed at least the tenth grade of school or possess an equivalent education, and be of good moral character.

Good news on that last one, as Michigan takes a step toward becoming Somalia
 

Quote

 

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a package of bills Monday that will make it much easier for people with criminal records to become licensed in their chosen field. By imposing significant costs in terms of time and money, licensing laws often create substantial hurdles to worker mobility and prisoner reentry. For instance, the average license for lower- and middle-income occupations in Michigan requires paying $242 in fees, finishing 255 days of training and experience, and passing two exams.

The bill package (HB 4888-4492) targets Michigan’s requirement that applicants must have “good moral character” in order to obtain occupational licenses–an often vague and arbitrary standard. Under the reform, licensing boards will only be able to disqualify applicants for lacking good moral character if they have been convicted of a felony that has a “direct and specific relationship” to the license sought or poses a “demonstrable risk to public safety.” Boards will also be required to consider an applicant’s evidence of rehabilitation, their employment history, any testimonials on their behalf, as well as the time elapsed since the crime was committed. 

...

“An honest living is one of the best ways to prevent re-offending. But strict occupational licensing requirements make it harder for ex-offenders to find work,” said IJ Legislative Nutjob Nick Sibilla, who authored the report. “These bills will eliminate many licensing barriers that have little basis in common sense and unfairly deny countless Michiganders looking for a fresh start.”

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, chinabald said:

I’m not upset with this. As Ronald Reagan said the best social program is a job. Removing barriers from getting jobs is never a bad thing. 

But you're removing regulations from businesses! It's the path toward becoming Somalia and should never be pursued!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington DC Becoming Somalia

Quote

 

Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser signed a bill that will make it much easier for people with criminal records to become licensed in their chosen field. Previously, the District had below-average protections for ex-offenders seeking licenses to work, receiving a C- in a recent report by the Institute for Justice, Barred from Working. But thanks to the bill signed this week, that grade will soar to an A-, with the District’s laws the best in the nation, second only to Indiana.

“An honest living is one of the best ways to prevent re-offending. But strict occupational licensing requirements make it harder for ex-offenders to find work,” said IJ Activism Policy Nutjob Chad Reese, who submitted testimony in favor of the bill. “This bill will eliminate many licensing barriers that have little basis in common sense and unfairly deny countless Americans looking for a fresh start.”

...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2020 at 6:51 PM, Polytelum Tom said:

And now the Supreme Court is being asked to consider Courtney v Danner

The idea that an existing ferry boat business can veto the arrival of competition seems wrong to me.
 

 

SCOTUS does not want to hear about it.

Quote

Slaughter-House was a terrible opinion, but it was correct in recognizing that inherent in the citizenship of every American is the right to use the nation’s navigable waters,” said Michael Bindas, IJ Senior Nutjob and lead counsel for the Courtneys.  “Unfortunately, the Supreme Court refused to enforce that right today.  Nevertheless, the Institute for Justice remains steadfastly committed to revitalizing the Privileges or Immunities Clause—to restoring it to its rightful place as the cornerstone of the Fourteenth Amendment and the primary constitutional bulwark of economic liberty.”

This despite

 

On 12/21/2020 at 8:17 PM, Polytelum Tom said:

So maybe the Supreme Court is not so afraid of an orchestrated chorus of amici after all. Oh well, privileges and immunities will remain hypothetical but I'm glad nutjobs are at least trying to change that situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the good news front, Ohio is becoming Somalia
 

Quote

 

Gov. Mike DeWine signed legislation Saturday (HB 263) that will make it much easier for Ohioans with criminal records to become licensed in their chosen field. Previously, the Buckeye State had scant protections for ex-offenders seeking licenses to work, receiving a D- in a recent report by the Institute for Justice, Barred from Working. Now that grade will soar to an A-.

“An honest living is one of the best ways to prevent re-offending. But strict occupational licensing requirements make it harder for ex-offenders to find work,” said IJ Nutjob and Barred from Working author Nick Sibilla

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

District court saves DC from becoming Somalia but the decision is being appealed.
 

Quote

 

Late Wednesday, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit filed by two day care providers and a D.C. parent alongside the Institute for Justice (IJ) challenging a requirement by Washington, D.C. regulators in the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) that day care providers obtain a college degree or look for another job.

When OSSE enacted the regulations in 2016, it did not cite any specific research to support its college requirement, but an OSSE official said the regulations were inspired by a 2015 report by the National Academies. That report actually stated that there is no empirical support for requiring day care providers to get college degrees and that there are many negative consequences in doing so. For example, the requirement threatens to put many lower-income women, often immigrants, out of work unless they upend their lives to obtain a college degree that adds nothing to their ability to care for children.

...

“These regulations only serve to drive up the cost of child care in the District, when it’s already the most expensive in the country,” said IJ Nutjob Renée Flaherty. “The degree requirement is not just a bad idea. The District’s arbitrary and irrational requirement violates day care providers’ right to earn an honest living guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We will be appealing the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.”

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Massachusetts Becoming Somalia
 

Quote

 

Massachusetts became the to eliminate licensing for natural hair braiders, thanks to a bonding bill signed late Thursday by Gov. Charlie Baker. With a rich heritage spanning millennia, natural hair braiding is a beauty practice common in many African American and African immigrant communities. Unlike cosmetologists, braiders do not cut hair or use any harsh chemicals or dyes in their work.

Yet Massachusetts was one of just seven states nationwide (and the only state in New England) that forced natural hair braiders to become licensed cosmetologists or hairstylists before they could work legally. In Massachusetts, a hairdresser license takes at least 1,000 hours of classes–an enormous burden, especially since many hairdressing schools don’t teach African-style braiding techniques. But now with the governor’s signature, braiding hair is finally exempt from the Bay State’s hairdressing regulations.

“The government has no business licensing something as safe and common as braiding hair. This is a great win for entrepreneurship, economic liberty, and just plain common sense,” said IJ Legislative Nutjob Jessica Gandy, who lobbied on behalf of the braiders.  ...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2020 at 5:13 AM, Polytelum Tom said:

It's a rough journey.
 

Quote

 

Just six weeks ago, Judge Arturo Cisneros Nelson struck down South Padre Island’s anti-competitive food truck permit cap and restaurant-permission scheme. The district court ruled that the city violated the Texas Constitution when it forced food truck owners to get permission from local restaurant owners before being eligible for a food truck permit, and by making it illegal for more than 12 food trucks to open for business on the island.

Astonishingly, South Padre Island’s city government continues to enforce both unconstitutional restrictions despite the ruling. Despite its public statements, the city has not appealed the court’s ruling declaring the permit cap and restaurant-permission scheme unconstitutional; it appealed only a separate ruling rejecting its meritless argument that Texas cities are immune from the Texas Constitution. Nor has the city asked any Texas court to suspend Judge Nelson’s judgment. Today, the Institute for Justice (IJ), which represents food truck owners, filed a motion in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi–Edinburg, Texas), asking the court to prohibit the city of South Padre Island from enforcing the two restrictions that Judge Nelson declared unconstitutional and permanently enjoined.

“The city’s disregard of its own citizen’s constitutional rights and its lack of transparency should concern everyone,” said Arif Panju, Managing Nutjob of IJ’s Texas Office. “It is astonishing that we had to ask the court of appeals to order what the district court already made clear: the city’s food truck permit cap and restaurant-permission scheme are unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. By continuing to enforce both restrictions, the city and its officials are violating a court order while flouting the authority of Texas courts and the Texas Constitution.”

...

 

Going out on a limb here, I'm going to guess that the appeals court says you can't ignore courts. Further out on the limb, they'll also say that the TX constitution applies to cities in TX.

Instead of making an actual argument, I think IJ should just get Captain Obvious to make an appearance in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Nutjobs trying to make Oklahoma into Somalia
 

Quote

 

Should Oklahoma entrepreneurs be forced to spend thousands of dollars and at least 600 hours on esthetician coursework that does not even teach their trade?

That question has led two Oklahoma eyebrow threading business owners, Shazia Ittiq and Seema Panjwani, to join forces with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to challenge the constitutionality of the licensing requirement that the Oklahoma Board of Cosmetology imposes on eyebrow threaders. The Board requires all threaders to hold at least an esthetician license. And last week, the Board ordered Shazia to shut down her business immediately for employing threaders without an esthetician license. She is filing for a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the unconstitutional licensing requirement as litigation proceeds.

The lawsuit, filed late yesterday, challenges this licensing requirement as violating the Oklahoma Constitution’s due process clause and its inherent rights clause. Like Oklahoma, Texas previously mandated that eyebrow threaders hold at least an esthetics license. Then, following a lawsuit from eight eyebrow threaders who partnered with IJ, the Texas Supreme Court in 2015 reaffirmed its state constitution’s protections for Texans to work in the occupation of their choice without unreasonable government interference. The Oklahoma Constitution offers the same kind of protections to Oklahomans.

“Threaders don’t need a license to do their jobs across the border in Texas. And they shouldn’t need one in Oklahoma, either,” said IJ Nutjob Marie Miller. “Threaders in Oklahoma have been providing high-quality, safe services to customers for years. They shouldn’t be put out of work because the Cosmetology Board demands they learn and prove competency in unrelated skills.”

Eyebrow threading is an ancient grooming technique common in South Asian and Middle Eastern countries, and has been passed down for generations. The threader makes a loop in a strand of cotton thread by twisting the strand around itself multiple times, then slides and traps unwanted hairs in the loop and lifts them from their follicles. The technique is often learned at a young age from family or friends, and it uses no chemicals, heat or sharp objects.

The experienced threaders in Oklahoma have become highly skilled in the technique, and requiring them to spend in some cases over $10,000 to obtain a license for services they will never provide, all to obtain permission to do the job they have already mastered, makes no sense.

...

 

I agree that the law makes no sense and is just more of the protectionism displayed in most every post of this thread.

Speaking of things that make no sense to me, wrapping thread around eyebrow hairs and yanking them out is on my list, now that I know what it is. Yeouch!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 1/22/2021 at 5:05 AM, Shambolic Tom said:
On 12/9/2020 at 5:13 AM, Polytelum Tom said:

It's a rough journey.
 

Quote

 

Just six weeks ago, Judge Arturo Cisneros Nelson struck down South Padre Island’s anti-competitive food truck permit cap and restaurant-permission scheme. The district court ruled that the city violated the Texas Constitution when it forced food truck owners to get permission from local restaurant owners before being eligible for a food truck permit, and by making it illegal for more than 12 food trucks to open for business on the island.

Astonishingly, South Padre Island’s city government continues to enforce both unconstitutional restrictions despite the ruling. Despite its public statements, the city has not appealed the court’s ruling declaring the permit cap and restaurant-permission scheme unconstitutional; it appealed only a separate ruling rejecting its meritless argument that Texas cities are immune from the Texas Constitution. Nor has the city asked any Texas court to suspend Judge Nelson’s judgment. Today, the Institute for Justice (IJ), which represents food truck owners, filed a motion in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi–Edinburg, Texas), asking the court to prohibit the city of South Padre Island from enforcing the two restrictions that Judge Nelson declared unconstitutional and permanently enjoined.

“The city’s disregard of its own citizen’s constitutional rights and its lack of transparency should concern everyone,” said Arif Panju, Managing Nutjob of IJ’s Texas Office. “It is astonishing that we had to ask the court of appeals to order what the district court already made clear: the city’s food truck permit cap and restaurant-permission scheme are unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. By continuing to enforce both restrictions, the city and its officials are violating a court order while flouting the authority of Texas courts and the Texas Constitution.”

...

 

Expand  

Going out on a limb here, I'm going to guess that the appeals court says you can't ignore courts. Further out on the limb, they'll also say that the TX constitution applies to cities in TX.

Instead of making an actual argument, I think IJ should just get Captain Obvious to make an appearance in court.

Limb broke. The TX 13th Court of Appeals sided with the S Padre Island contention that the TX constitution doesn't apply to TX cities, so it's on to the TX Supreme Court.
 

Quote

 

...

The city initially claimed that its defiance was because it did not understand the court’s order, but it simultaneously refused to ask the district court for clarity. And at the same time, the city misled the public on its official Facebook page, indicating that the district court had not done what it did. Based on that misrepresentation, the city announced that both the permit cap and restaurant permission scheme “will remain in effect.”

The city’s behavior is a direct slap in the face of the Texas courts, which exist to protect Texans’ constitutional rights. So today the Institute for Justice, working on behalf of a group of food trucks, has asked the Texas Supreme Court to intervene and force the city to comply with  Judge Nelson’s court order and the Texas Constitution.

“When a law is ruled unconstitutional by a Texas court under Article I of the Texas Constitution (Bill of Rights) that law is immediately void and unenforceable” said Arif Panju, Managing Nutjob of the Institute for Justice’s Texas office. “By continuing to fence out food-truck competition at the behest of local restaurant owners, the city is not only defying the authority of Texas courts, but also preventing food truck vendors from earning a living. Now the city must answer to the Texas Supreme Court.”

...

 

I think the city understands Judge Nelson's order just fine, they just want to protect local restaurants against competition. Crony capitalism is kind of a running theme in this thread, as is attacking the kinds of businesses that people of limited means can open and run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2020 at 5:06 AM, Shambolic Tom said:

Vizaline got a consent agreement allowing them to doodle on satellite images.
 

I suspect that if The Board members asked a real surveyor to do a real survey and got back a satellite image with lines plunked down on it, they would have understood that they were ripped off and that was not a survey. Pretending to fail to grasp that simple truth was convenient for protecting license holders but didn't hold up in court, thankfully. One more step on the road to becoming Somalia!

Similarly, if I asked a surveyor to survey a property and got back some drone images, I would feel ripped off.

But in North Carolina, I guess that counts as a survey, at least for protectionist crony capitalism purposes.
 

Quote

 

...

The images and maps that Michael was creating for willing customers were not being used to set legal boundaries; they were purely for informational purposes. And creating and sharing information is speech protected by the First Amendment. To protect his right to free speech, Michael is teaming up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit.

“Drone technology may be new, but the principles at stake in Michael’s case are as old as the nation itself,” said Sam Gedge, a nutjob with the Institute for Justice. “Taking photos and providing information to willing clients isn’t ‘surveying’; it’s speech, and it’s protected by the First Amendment.”

...

Michael is a Goldsboro, North Carolina, photographer and videographer who expanded into drone imagery about five years ago. Michael’s drones took photos of homes for sale, buildings under construction, and a warehouse that wanted to use thermal imaging to see where heat was escaping. He also used his drones to stitch together images into orthomosaic maps composed of multiple images.

It was not until he received a warning letter from the Board in December 2018 that Michael had any idea that what he was doing could be considered “surveying.” He had always been careful to note that his work did not establish property lines and could not be used for legal purposes. But a Board investigator told him that providing images with any metadata (information about GPS coordinates, elevation, or distance) or that stitching together images qualified as surveying and required a full-blown, state-issued license. Worried about the Board’s threat that he could be fined or even criminally prosecuted, Michael shut down much of his drone business.

“When the surveying board wrote that I was breaking the law, I could hardly believe it,” said Michael. “I didn’t think that I was doing anything that could be considered surveying. In fact, I don’t know of any surveying company that was using drones like I was.”

The Board—which is chaired by a licensed surveyor—has a strong incentive to define “surveying” broadly to prevent competition that could impact surveying businesses.

...

 

Or even just "competition" that could not impact surveying businesses. We just bought some property to develop. A building permit requires a current survey. If I fly my drone over there and take a pic and hand that in to the county as a "survey" they would be even more irritable than usual. With good reason. That's not a survey.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 7/1/2020 at 6:36 AM, Excoded Tom said:

FL Governor Signs Somalian Reforms Into Law
 

Glad to see the horror of unregulated hair braiding spread some more.

Years of training for interior design? Glad to see that gone too, but I question even the need for a registration. If I want to pay someone to tell me what would look good inside a building, who is harmed by letting me just do it?

 

Florida taking another step toward becoming Somalia
 

Quote

 

...

“The Florida legislature took a sensible step to give barbers the ability to meet their customers where they need a haircut, not just in a barbershop,” said IJ Florida Office Managing Nutjob Justin Pearson. “With the governor’s signature, barbers would be able to cut hair at nursing homes, hospitals and in homes. Cosmetologists have already shown that this freedom provides huge benefits to consumers, especially during the pandemic. Barbers and their customers will now enjoy that same freedom. We want to thank the bill sponsors, Senator Stewart and Representative Morales, for their work on both chambers’ versions of the bill.”

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mississippi Becoming Somalia

Quote

 

Mississippi no longer requires professional licenses for people who offer low-risk beauty services, a change that will save residents thousands of dollars and hours of time spent on training.

House Bill 1312 was signed by Gov. Tate Reeves April 9, and it became law immediately. It removes certification requirements for people who work as eyebrow threaders, eyelash technicians or makeup artists.

The Mississippi State Board of Cosmetology previously required people who receive money for these services to earn an esthetician license. The license requires training and exams, but none of the training deals with applying false eyelashes or eyebrow threading, the technique of using a single strand of cotton thread to remove hair.

...

 

So that's nice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Arkansas Becoming Somalia
 

Quote

 

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed a bill (HB 1746) on Tuesday that will make it much easier for people to enter and work in the beauty industry. Previously, washing, cleansing, blow drying, brushing, or combing hair required a cosmetologist license, a credential that takes at least 1,500 hours of training and can cost tens of thousands of dollars in tuition. 

Under the new law, Arkansans will no longer have to become a licensed cosmetologist to perform any of those simple and harmless services. Instead, aspiring hair stylists who want to wash and style hair need only register with the Department of Health and pay a $10 fee. HB 1746 does not apply to cutting hair or any chemical treatments, like bleaching, coloring, or dyeing. 

“Arkansas has taken an important step to removing unnecessary barriers to work,” said Institute for Justice Legislative Nutjob Jessica Gandy. “This reform will create more opportunities for entrepreneurs in the beauty industry and all Arkansans.”

 

But don't panic, the overwhelming majority of US states still require a license to shampoo hair or operate a blow dryer, so there are still safe places to live.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida Becoming Somalia
 

Quote

 

The Legislature today approved a bill that would make it easier for many Floridians to work. House Bill 735 bans Florida municipalities and counties from creating additional licensing requirements for a long list of occupations.

...

The banned local occupational licenses include, but are not limited to, handyman services; painting; flooring; cabinetry; interior remodeling; driveway or tennis court installation; decorative stone, tile, marble, granite, or terrazzo installation; plastering; stuccoing; caulking; canvas awning; and ornamental iron installation.

 

Caulking?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing our efforts to become Somalia in Florida
 

Quote

 

Under a newly passed bill, Floridians will find it easier to start and run home-based businesses. House Bill 403, which has now passed both the Florida House and Senate, standardizes rules for operating businesses inside of a home. The bill bans city and county governments from regulating work that happens strictly inside a residence. Local restrictions on activities that affect the outside of a residence—including parking, noise or emissions—could continue under the new law should it be signed by the governor.

“Half of all businesses are home-based, yet many of Florida’s city and county governments have created unnecessary red tape preventing Floridians from pursuing the American Dream,” said IJ Florida Office Managing Nutjob Justin Pearson. “These local barriers were already a problem before the pandemic, but even more Floridians have attempted to start home-based businesses during the past year, either out of necessity or because they felt the time was right. This reform ensures that no matter where they live in the Sunshine State, Floridians can start home-based businesses with confidence. We want to thank the bill sponsors, Senator Perry and Representative Giallombardo, for their work on both chambers’ versions of the bill.”

 


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Small Cracks in the Restrictive Wall of Occupational Licensing Across the Nation
 

Quote

 

...

"Over the last 60 years, the number of jobs requiring an occupational license, or government approval to practice a profession, has grown from about 1 in 20 to nearly 1 in 4," noted the Council of State Governments in a 2020 report on the practice, in which it summed up some positive trends toward making it easier for Americans to practice professions helping other Americans. The Obama administration recognized back in a 2015 report that "the current licensing regime in the United States…creates substantial costs, and often the requirements for obtaining a license are not in sync with the skills needed for the job. There is evidence that licensing requirements raise the price of goods and services, restrict employment opportunities, and make it more difficult for workers to take their skills across State lines. Too often, policymakers do not carefully weigh these costs and benefits."

...

 

The quote from the Obama administration's report accurately summarizes most of this thread.

I guess I should apologize for the Koch-$pon$ored Obama cheerleading?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How Congress Could Cement State-Level Progress on Occupational Licensing Reform
 

Quote

 

Occupational licensing is supposed to protect consumers from harm, but often it seems to do little more than protect license holders from would-be competitors.

...

Specifically, the Restoring Board Immunity Act would provide two pathways for states to follow. They could create new accountability measures for licensing boards within the state government—effectively giving executive branch officials a positive obligation to review and approve the behavior of boards that are usually allowed to do as they please. Or they can pass laws that would force courts to apply a higher degree of legal scrutiny to licensing boards' actions, in the event that a board is hauled in front of a judge for approving anti-competitive rules.

Both are meant to prevent the sort of self-dealing that occurred in the North Carolina dental board case—and which is all too common for boards that are often controlled by the very businesses they are supposed to regulate.

All that red tape isn't doing much to protect consumers, but it does seem to have an impact on employment. One in every four American jobs now requires a government-issued license, according to a recent report from the Council of State Governments. Morris Kleiner, a labor economist at the University of Minnesota, estimates that easing licensing rules could create 2 million more jobs nationally. And licensing also reduces economic mobility by making it harder for workers to move from state to state, since that often requires going through an expensive and time-consuming process to get licensed again.

...

 

It would be nice if people who can braid hair in one state could just move to another state and continue to work. Ahh... Somalian dreams!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Wisconsin is becoming Somalia

Quote

Wisconsin hair braiders may no longer need a permission slip from the government to make a livelihood using their skills. In June, the state legislature passed a bill to allow people to professionally braid hair without a license. The measure now awaits Gov. Tony Evers' signature.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Governor Evers signed the Wisconsin law, but there's actually bigger news on the hair braiding front.
 

Quote

 

...

Shortly after the governor signed the bill, President Joe Biden on Friday signed a new executive order urging the Federal Trade Commission to do away with “unfair occupational licensing requirements.” In his speech, President Biden specifically cited licenses for hair braiders as an example of a “significant burden”: “Do you realize if you want to braid hair, and you move from one state to another, you sometimes have to do a six-month apprenticeship, even though you’ve been in business for a long, long time? What’s that all about?” 

Today, occupational licensing is one of the largest barriers to upward mobility in the nation’s labor markets. According to a 2018 report by the Institute for Justice, nearly 1 in 5 workers now needs a license to do their jobs—a fourfold increase from the 1950s.

...

 

Not sure how they did it, but it appears that Koch-$pon$ored nutjobs must have gotten to Joe Biden. I approve!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

Well, Governor Evers signed the Wisconsin law, but there's actually bigger news on the hair braiding front.
 

Not sure how they did it, but it appears that Koch-$pon$ored nutjobs must have gotten to Joe Biden. I approve!

i've got this

hair braiding is code for regulation is bad 

fortunately the koch brothers soon come to the rescue :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

Well, Governor Evers signed the Wisconsin law, but there's actually bigger news on the hair braiding front.
 

Not sure how they did it, but it appears that Koch-$pon$ored nutjobs must have gotten to Joe Biden. I approve!

Yea, I skimmed his EO yesterday.   We'll see where it goes.  Mostly, the EO orders a LOT of review/data collection.  Optimistically, that's the foundation for new policies or removal of ineffective ones.  Pessimistically, it's "yea, we looked at it, nothing we can do under existing statues, gonna have to wait for congress, ciao!".  I'll be optimistic though this year - I'll see what gets passed as part of reconciliation the squeal before I get too giddy.  We know how slimming the 'remove 2 for every 1' Trump EO worked out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Virtual Access to Doctors During the Pandemic Changed the Lives of Patients With Disabilities. Now That Care Is in Jeopardy.
 

Quote

 

...

The broad access to telehealth across state lines was made possible by states waiving medical licensure requirements as a part of PANIC orders during the panicdemic. These made it possible for health care providers to have appointments with patients in other states.

Now that emergency orders are being lifted, the future of telehealth is unclear.

...

Now, providers may have to give up their newer virtual patients or jump through a lot of hoops to keep them. And patients who were able to see doctors from the comfort and safety of their homes may have to again make those risk/reward calculations about whether it's worth traveling to receive care.

The good news is that a number of organizations and states are taking measures to preserve the freedom of care that telehealth has enabled. 

The Interstate Medical Licensure Compact is an agreement among 30 U.S. states that streamlines the complex licensure requirements for medical providers who want to offer telehealth care across state lines. Eligible physicians can use one application to qualify for licenses from all participating states. A similar compact, Psypact, exists for mental health providers. 

Legislators in Connecticut, Arizona, and Delaware have recently passed bills that will allow out-of-state providers to continue to provide telehealth services to those in their states.

There are also two federal bills in progress in the House and Senate that aim to reduce barriers to telehealth. The Senate bill would remove all federal geographic requirements for digital health appointments.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

19 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 7/21/2021 at 6:18 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Actually, calling yourself an engineer, even accurately, and talking about engineering projects without the proper license can and has lead to penalties.

Retired Engineer Offers Free Expert Testimony for Flood Victims. Licensing Officials Threaten Him With Criminal Charges.

Writer-Activist Hit With Licensing Complaint for Calling Himself an Engineer

Doing math without a license is OK in Oregon.

But I think the answer to Grrr's question is that doctors learn the medical arts. If a doctor tells you something, it's often wise to get another artist's opinion.

Expand  Expand  

If this is an anti-regulation meme, allow me to speak against it. A building built by a Libertarian would be a gold mine for a repair service.

 

Presently, I am dealing with two buildings which were built with impromptu, cowboy "engineering." Somebody needed to approve what they were trying to build, and somebody else needed to closely inspect how they chose to do it. (Cuz freedom.)

I did my fourth truck pour at age eleven. I could, and did, wire a three-way 110V switch system at age 13. I began to build as a pro at age 21, so that makes it fifty years as a pro now. For whatever reason, I still enjoy the work... and I got smooth at it.

But more significantly, I did an apprenticeship (of sorts) on the EAST coast, where many, many buildings are a few hundred years old, and they have appendages as remodels. Many strange things got dun in the midnight sun, by free thinkers.

 

Decent "engineering" is good, and is very, very necessary. It is sorely needed, even for common residential buildings.  The absence of quality building techniques will be felt, even in a shed or outbuilding, in due time.  The license behind the math protects the home-buying public. 

I have lived and worked a bit in many spots in North America. On the west coast, I find that most remodelers think like cowboys, and build like cowboys. This is a form of grand American Individualism...which disguises becomes petty ignorance, IMO

 

Yes, Dogballs, any building built by a Libertarian free-thinking kinda guy becomes a gold mine for the repair services. One doesn't need to draw the map; one only needs to follow the map. Out.

It's more an anti-nonsense meme. Talking about an engineering project isn't engineering. It's talking, and is protected under the first amendment.

But as for building regulations in general, we agree. I have had to explain this to some of my libertarian elk, who are just reflexively enti-regulation. I basically told them neighbors don't want pieces of their homes coming their way in a curricane, nor do they want the place to catch fire. So bulid things to code, or above code.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

  

It's more an anti-nonsense meme. Talking about an engineering project isn't engineering. It's talking, and is protected under the first amendment.

But as for building regulations in general, we agree. I have had to explain this to some of my libertarian elk, who are just reflexively enti-regulation. I basically told them neighbors don't want pieces of their homes coming their way in a curricane, nor do they want the place to catch fire. So bulid things to code, or above code.

That's nice, Dogballs, but let's just proceed to verify that the Uniform Building Codes get actually built . Let's have a supervised building inspector take a look at the phases, and sign them off, in sequence.

I wouldn't trust your building techniques any more then I trust your presentation of the gun situation. You think with a contorted, dishonest, self-serving mind, so I'm gonna assume you would build with a contorted, dishonest, and self-serving agenda.

 

Sorry to say this, but it has been my experience that to protect the general public, we urgently need to learn, and enforce, building codes... because of free thinker types. We have too many cowboys with toolz out there, each one an expert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

That's nice, Dogballs, but let's just proceed to verify that the Uniform Building Codes get actually built . Let's have a supervised building inspector take a look at the phases, and sign them off, in sequence.

That's what happens in practice and it usually makes sense to me. But not always.

For example, before getting a final inspection and approval on my boat shed, I had to have a pest company come out and pump the ground (and ground water) full of... something... to kill termites. It's a steel building on a concrete pad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

That's what happens in practice and it usually makes sense to me. But not always.

For example, before getting a final inspection and approval on my boat shed, I had to have a pest company come out and pump the ground (and ground water) full of... something... to kill termites. It's a steel building on a concrete pad.

Why? Because idiots like you just bury the concrete forms... creating a balanced diet for termites. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Why? Because idiots like you just bury the concrete forms... creating a balanced diet for termites. 

Hah! Shows what you know, amateur! You remove the forms first, then reinstall them before burying. Like this:

BoatportPad.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your brain, and in your heart, you are a cheater, @Excoded Tom

 

And yes, tell us all about "re-installing" the concrete forms before "burying."  Wanker.

Quote

You remove the forms first, then reinstall them before burying. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court Blasts Economic Protectionism as it Strikes Down Durational Residency Requirements for Business Licenses
 

Quote

 

Arlington, Va.—By a 7-2 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a broadside against state-based economic protectionism as it struck down a Tennessee law that had required anyone seeking a retail liquor license to first reside in the state for two years—and 10 years before they could renew it.

“To put it mildly, today’s opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito and the six justices of the Court who joined with him was an indictment against in-state economic protectionism,” said Anya Bidwell, a nutjob with the Institute for Justice (IJ), which litigated the case on behalf of Doug and Mary Ketchum.

...

 

Gorsuch dissented, joined by Thomas.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Kansas may not be safe for much longer against the horror of unlicensed eyebrow threaders

Quote

Jigisha Modi and Jignesh Biscuitwala are a married couple who together run Miracle Eyebrows, an eyebrow threading business with locations in Olathe and Shawnee, Kansas. Struggling to find potential employees, they hoped to hire Jignesh's mother, Jyotsna Biscuitwala, to come work for the family business. But Kansas' occupational licensing regime has made doing so incredibly difficult. 

...

Jyotsna Biscuitwala has 30 years of experience but the state wants her to complete 1,000 hours of mostly unrelated training before she can work.

As if getting through life with a name like Biscuitwala wasn't hard enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Patel and its progeny
 

Quote

 

In Patel, the Texas Supreme Court held 6-3 that the state unconstitutionally licensed eyebrow threaders by making them learn a host of irrelevant cosmetology techniques for hundreds of hours. In a first-of-its-kind decision, the Court went on to adopt an exacting state constitutional standard for economic regulations. Five justices outright rejected the rational basis test often used in federal courts—the standard against which we have waged war for 30 years. (Rational basis often allows courts to rubberstamp laws and regulations so long as there is any conceivable rational basis, no matter how far-fetched, for what the government is doing.) A sixth justice believed the license failed even the government-friendly rational basis test. And Justice Don Willett (now a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) wrote a tour-de-force concurrence extolling the freedom to earn an honest living.

We have since used our victory in Patel to file 20 new economic liberty cases in state court seeking to establish stronger constitutional protections for economic liberty. Already, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted the Patel standard and the Georgia Supreme Court has unanimously indicated that it, too, will adopt a similar standard, in an ongoing case in which we are challenging the state’s licensing of lactation consultants.

There is more to come. In late 2020, IJ launched our post-Patel project to widely export Texas’s liberty-friendly standard. For example, we have a case pending in neighboring Louisiana challenging that state’s continued regulation of African hair braiding. In February 2021, we launched a case in Oklahoma challenging that state’s threading regulations—and the state agreed to a preliminary injunction based on Patel. We are also very excited to be litigating an appeal in Texas in which the state high court will be asked to extend Patel to restrictions on the doctor/patient relationship.

The decision has been impactful outside the courtroom, too. When we began representing Ash Patel, he had recently immigrated from India, and was working at a hotel and dreaming of starting his own business. After the state agreed not to enforce the law, he was able to start his threading business and, when we won, he opened new locations in Austin and Houston. He no longer works at hotels; he owns several of them. And he employs dozens of recent South Asian immigrants who moved to Texas to pursue their American Dreams. All of this was made possible because IJ was able to stand up to the government officials who were trying to drive Ash out of business.

 

Want to help poor, brown-skinned immigrants like Ash Patel thrive in America? Here's an idea: let 'em work! Here's another idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2020 at 6:36 AM, Excoded Tom said:

The law also includes a provision preventing Florida cities from banning food trucks or requiring operators to obtain an additional local license or pay additional fees in order to vend. Florida is the third state to create such a law, following in the steps of California and Arizona.

And more good news for Florida food truck operators: Fort Pierce Ban Permanently Gone
 

Quote

 

...

Fort Pierce’s proximity ban was one of the most stringent in the country, making it almost impossible to do business in the city. A Florida circuit court ruled in February 2019 that the ban likely violated the Florida Constitution and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, allowing food truck vendors to operate in the city during the litigation. In response, Fort Pierce repealed the ban, but Benny and Brian would not drop their lawsuit until the city agreed never to bring back the ban. This judgment ensures that the food truck ban is gone for good.

“This final judgment is a victory for the Florida Constitution and the right to earn an honest living,” said IJ’s Florida Office Managing Nutjob Justin Pearson. “The government is not allowed to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. That choice belongs to consumers.”

The law’s sole purpose was to protect existing restaurants from competition, a fact the city repeatedly mentioned while enacting the ban; in 2014, then-Commissioner Edward Becht said that the 500-foot ban exists because allowing food trucks to compete for business would, “hurt the brick-and-mortar businesses.”

But the Florida Constitution protects the right of individuals to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government interference. There is no legitimate justification for prohibiting a food truck from operating on a certain block because a brick-and-mortar business located almost two football fields away also sells food. Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held that protectionism is not a legitimate government interest under the Florida Constitution.

Benny Diaz celebrated the final end to his legal fight with Fort Pierce with the knowledge that he will not be stopped from serving customers his delicious tacos at his Taco Trap food truck.

...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless they happen to operate food trucks in Tarpon Springs, like Elijah and Ashley Durham
 

Quote

 

Today, the owners of a Florida food truck vowed to continue their legal battle against Tarpon Springs after a Florida court decided that they could not sue the city over an ordinance that requires independently operated food trucks to use someone else’s name in order to operate downtown. Elijah and Ashley Durham opened SOL Burger last year when Elijah lost his job as a chef during the pandemic. Soon after opening in their town, Tarpon Springs passed an ordinance that banned trucks from downtown unless they were owned by a brick-and-mortar restaurant. In May, Elijah and Ashley, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), sued the city in Florida court.

Following Elijah and Ashley’s widely covered lawsuit, Tarpon Springs changed its tune and said that independent food trucks could operate in the city but only if they “temporarily re-branded” by using the name of the business at which they were operating. Forcing an otherwise legal business to use someone else’s name to operate is a blatant free-speech violation. Doing so also robs Elijah and Ashley of the opportunity to build their brand, which is critical to success in the food service industry. Unfortunately, the trial court’s decision ruled that Elijah and Ashley cannot modify their suit to bring the free-speech claim until they have actually suffered the harm of using someone else’s name.

“Tarpon Springs should not be able to escape the scrutiny of the courts by substituting one constitutional violation for another,” said IJ Nutjob Ben Field. “SOL Burger should be able to operate on the private property they are invited onto and operate under their own name. We hope that the court of appeal will take the free-speech violation seriously.”

“It is textbook constitutional law that someone whose speech has been chilled can bring a free-speech claim,” said Justin Pearson, IJ’s Florida Office Managing Nutjob. “Unfortunately, the trial court disagreed. We look forward to the appeal.”

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Criticize the government and lose your license.
 

Quote

 

Earlier this month, Joshua Gray, a private investigator from Massachusetts, filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to reverse a decision by the Maine Department of Public Safety denying him a license as a professional investigator in Maine. The Department based its denial on the fact that it disapproved of Gray’s criticism of the Department’s own employees’ conduct in a police shooting that left two dead. The Institute for Justice (IJ) filed the petition on Gray’s behalf.

IJ Senior Nutjob and lead counsel Paul Sherman said, “When the government retaliates against people because of their speech, it violates the First Amendment. That’s true whether the government is imposing a fine, withholding a parade permit, or denying an occupational license.”

...

 

We seem to have lots of fans of occupational licensing over in the Ivermectin thread at the moment. Weird that none of them ever comment on the excesses.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Louisiana is still marked safe from unlicensed florists.

And they seem pretty proud of it because you can pay your fee and take your test online now, and even receive your results immediately! Good government in action!

The thing about that is...

this was true in 2010 and remains true today:
 

Quote

 

...

“H.B 1407 gives aspiring florists and entrepreneurs more freedom to pursue their chosen occupation free from blatantly anti-competitive government interference,” declared Tim Keller, the Institute for Justice’s lead nutjob in Chauvin v. Strain. “In light of this new law, and the fact that three of our clients have taken and passed the state’s written examination, we will declare victory and move to voluntarily dismiss our case.”

Before the new law passed, Louisiana required would-be florists to pass both a written test and a highly subjective demonstration examination, in which they were given four hours to create four floral arrangements that were then judged by a panel of state-licensed florists—i.e., their own future competitors. The written test remains on the books for now, but it presents a relatively minor government hoop that people must jump through before they may sell floral arrangements in Louisiana.

“Arranging and selling flowers is a completely harmless occupation,” continued Keller. “Therefore, the Institute for Justice will continue to monitor the state’s written exam to ensure that it remains an insubstantial barrier for would-be florists. If necessary, we are certainly prepared to file a new lawsuit in order to finish the job that H.B. 1407 started by eliminating the practical exam, which has always been the real root of the problem here in Louisiana.”

“There is no need for the government to test or license would-be florists,” Keller concluded. “The only purpose served by the written exam is to raise funds for the state through licensing fees while setting up unnecessary—but in this case fairly trivial —barriers to entrepreneurship. The legislature should take the next step and eliminate the written examination.”

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...