First, the law:
In Louisiana, you don’t need a license to peddle pets, paintings or cars — but sell no flowers.
A 7-decades-old state law requires florists to pass a test and get a license to arrange and sell flowers, making Louisiana the only state in the USA with such a requirement. Supporters of the law say it ensures florists know what they’re doing and deliver quality products.
You know what really ensures that florists know what they doing? Customers. Asking government to enforce competence is like asking an alcoholic to enforce sobriety.
The Institute for Justice is challenging the requirement:
A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court here last week is challenging the law’s constitutionality, claiming it infringes on a resident’s right to earn a living. The suit, filed by the Institute of Justice, a libertarian non-profit law firm based in Washington, D.C., lists as plaintiffs four local florists who have either failed the test or refuse to take it.
…Attorneys hope the lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court, said Tim Keller, lead counsel in the case.
…Keller is with the Institute for Justice, which has taken the case pro bono. The licensing law “is blooming nonsense,” the institute says on its website.
“This case is about more than just licensing florists,” he said. “It can set a precedent that restores economic liberty to its rightful place as a fundamental American right.”
That would be something to see. It’s been a long time since economic liberty has mattered in the U.S.
Licensing laws are contrary to everything America stands for. The idea that someone first needs government permission before offering a voluntary service is as contemptible as it is tyrannical.
Leave a comment
Print This Post
The Congress Elementary School District in Arizona is tired of having to comply with open record laws, or deal with pesky residents that want to know what they’re doing. The school district is now suing four residents on the basis that their lawful requests amount to “harassment.” No kidding:
The Congress Elementary School District claims that past efforts by these residents to obtain documents such as minutes of board meetings and spending reports amount to harassment that should not have to be tolerated.
But Jean Warren, one of the four defendants named in the lawsuit filed January 28, 2010, said the complaint is an illegal attempt to silence citizens who have questioned the district’s policies and spending practices.
The lawsuit says the defendants filed over 100 public records requests since 2002. That’s barely 10 a year. It then hyperventilates that it is contrary to the “public interest” to comply with the requests “filed by the Defendants on an almost daily basis.”
One hundred requests since 2002 is an almost daily basis? No wonder kids can’t count. They are being taught by morons – thuggish, tyrannical morons who think they have a right to lord it over children and parents alike without ever being questioned.
Leave a comment Print This Post
An Obama judicial appointment has troubling views on the Constitution:
Liu opponents point to a number of his writings, including a book he co-authored in 2009 called “Keeping Faith with the Constitution,” in which the authors opine about their concept of judicial interpretation.
“Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change … as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation.”
That theme — that the Constitution’s text and principles must be adapted to changes in the world — repeats throughout the book and raises eyebrows among conservatives.
It is imperative to combat such dangerous views wherever they arise. Yes, some principles change over time. Others, including many captured by both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are timeless. But for those principles that might change, the Constitution provides a process for dealing with that: amendments.
It’s an entirely different beast to say that the application of the constitution changes. The principles of the Constitution should be simply applied as they are. Believing differently raises an obvious question, which in the end should reveal the fault of this view. Who decides how the application changes? The answer, as we have seen to our detriment over the last 80 years or so, is that the court decides.
Allowing the Supreme Court to bring the Constitution into alignment with changing principles removes the people from the democratic process. This is why the Constitution was given an amendment process – so that it could maintain its principled timeliness, but still be of, by and for the people.
Print This Post
Some online, pop-culture rag I’ve never heard has this exclusive report!
John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is seriously considering stepping down from the nation’s highest court for personal reasons, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.
Roberts, known for his conservative judicial philosophy, has served on the Supreme Court since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of former Chief William Rehnquist.
RadarOnline.com has been told that Roberts, 55, could announce his decision at any time.
Hahaha.
John Roberts would have to hate America to do something this foolish, and he most certainly does not hate America .
Unsurprisingly, Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO has been told this is baseless nonsense.
Leave a comment Print This Post
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago today. The petitioners look to have Heller incorporated via the 14th Amendment and applied to the states.
Aside from this question, the case has also brought up the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which was long ago gutted by the Slaughter-House cases. Gura and his libertarian faction have sought to overturn these cases and have the 2nd Amendment incorporated via Privileges or Immunities (Cato has a case for reviving P&I), while others have wanted to focus on the simpler case of using Due Process.
Based on accounts of the hearing today, the Court seems unlikely to revisit the Slaughter-House cases. Thankfully, it is likely to incorporate via Due Process and finally extend 2nd Amendment protections to all Americans.
Update: Reason has more here and here.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Some lefty in Philly has terrible advice for Obama that I really hope he listens to:
This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court.
The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six. It shrank to five in 1801. It expanded to seven in 1807. It grew to nine in 1837 and 10 in 1863. It fell back to seven in 1866. It returned to nine in 1869 and has remained at that number since.
Political issues accounted for the changes. The Federalists reduced the number to five, hoping to deprive Thomas Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming Democrats repealed that measure, raising the number to seven. It went to nine in 1837 to give Andrew Jackson two more seats. Civil War issues led to more fluctuations before the court settled at nine under President Ulysses Grant.
So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.
I can think of few things better to cement public opposition to an already unpopular President, and all but assure his defeat in the next election, than to engage in such a naked power grab. I can say with complete confidence that there is no way this makes it through Congress, so there is no down side to hoping he tries.
Go for it, Barack! Yes, you can!
Hat-tip: HotAir
Leave a comment Print This Post
The news of the moment involves the arrest of James O’Keefe (of ACORN video fame) in what the FBI is describing as an attempt to bug a district office of Louisiana Sen. Landrieu.
According to the FBI affidavit, Flanagan and Basel entered the federal building at 500 Poydras Street about 11 a.m. Monday, dressed as telephone company employees, wearing jeans, fluorescent green vests, tool belts, and hard hats. When they arrived at Landrieu’s 10th floor office, O’Keefe was already in the office and had told a staffer he was waiting for someone to arrive.
When Flanagan and Basel entered the office, they told the staffer they were there to fix phone problems. At that time, the staffer, referred to only as Witness 1 in the affadavit, observed O’Keefe positioning his cell phone in his hand to videotape the operation. O’Keefe later admitted to agents that he recorded the event.
After being asked, the staffer gave Basel access to the main phone at the reception desk. The staffer told investigators that Basel manipulated the handset. He also tried to call the main office phone using his cell phone, and said the main line wasn’t working. Flanagan did the same.
I think it’s a bit dubious as to whether they were actually trying to bug the office. Where would they get a bug? That seems so over the top. I could be wrong, though.
Given the fact that several of them entered while dressed up as telephone repair men, I can’t help but wonder if this story is related:
United States Senator Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., today announced more than $12 million in U.S. Department of Agriculture funds for the Northeast Louisiana Telephone Company in Collinston, Louisiana. The funds made available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act can be used to bring broadband services to rural un-served and underserved communities.
Did O’Keefe suspect a bribe? Was Robert Flanagan, also involved in the incident and the son of a U.S. Attorney for western Louisiana, privy to some information about a possible investigation into Landrieu, which they were hoping to scope? Though they weren’t actually in northeast Louisiana, so this might be a bit of a stretch. The timing just caught me as suspicious.
Speculations aside, none of this can excuse their actions. Whatever it turns out they were doing, it was incredibly stupid. With this single reckless move, he has cast doubt on the exposure of ACORN’s corruption and alternative conservative journalism as a whole.
Update: Andrew Breitbart denies any knowledge of this event on behalf of Big Government
Leave a comment Print This Post
The left is in an uproar over the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of McCain-Feingold. My post on Big Government tells you why:
Leave a commentOn paper the Citizens United case has all the makings of a solid liberal issue. First Amendment protections, considered sacrosanct by the left when a reporter is leaking classified information, are strengthened for those speaking truth to power. Both the ACLU and AFL-CIO support the decision. So why are prominent liberals speaking out so vehemently against it?
…
Print This Post
The long awaited Citizens United decision has been handed down, and it appears to be a resounding victory for free speech!
From Volokh Conspiracy:
The Court held 5–4 that restrictions on independent corporate expenditures in political campaigns are unconstitutional, overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell v. FEC, and it upheld the disclosure requirements 8–1 (Thomas dissenting). Justice Kennedy explained that the Court was overruling some of its prior decisions because it was not possible to rule in favor of the petitioners on narrower grounds without chilling protected political speech. According to Justice Kennedy, the Court is re-embracing the principle that a speaker’s corporate identity is not a sufficient basis for suppressing political speech, as held in pre–Austin cases. It would appear this holding applies equally to unions.
The media is predictably spinning it as “rolling back” and overturning “key campaign limits,” rather than as upholding First Amendment rights.
It will be some time before the jumble of partial concurrences and dissents is fully dissected.
Leave a comment Print This Post
A PA court might finally put a halt to some of the hysterical overreactions of adults to children being children.
A federal appeals court must decide whether “sexting” by three Pennsylvania teens amounts to child pornography or is a free-speech right.
A three-judge panel in Philadelphia is hearing arguments Friday in a case between a county prosecutor and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The prosecutor is threatening to file child-pornography charges against three girls after racy cell-phone images of them circulated through their high school. The photos show one girl topless and the others in bras.
The ACLU says the case is the first in the nation to challenge whether prosecutors can file child-pornography charges in “sexting” cases. It argues that harmless photos shouldn’t be criminalized.
Out of control prosecutors all across the country have been ruining the lives of children under the guise of protecting them from themselves. In their fanatical, prosecutorial zeal, they seek to turn innocent mistakes into child pornography convictions that will forever label young boys and girls as predators, all for an activity that has no victim except (arguably) themselves.
This foolishness must stop. Can you imagine if, before computers and cameras, kids were arrested for playing “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours?” That’s how insane this is. Let’s hope the Pennsylvania court can inject a little sense into this entirely nonsensical behavior on the part of adults that should know better.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
