... Iowa’s cosmetologist license is more burdensome than the training requirements for dental assistants, bus drivers, emergency medical technicians, animal control officers, child care workers, security guards, pest control applicators and animal breeders—combined.
२ नोव्हेंबर, २०१५
"On Tuesday, Achan, joined by Aicheria Bell, another African-style hair braider, and the Institute for Justice, filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Iowa Board of Cosmetology Arts & Sciences."
"Their complaint asserts that the state’s licensing laws are 'burdensome and arbitrary…causing great and irreparable harm' and violate their rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
Good. Get rid of that nonsense. The market will kill off terrible beauticians more quickly than the state ever could.
As I always said, the market killed Enron. The government would've propped them up if possible.
We're really talking about fantasy football?
If the constitution bans shakedowns, we'll have to close government.
They'll still vote for regulation loving democrats.
The government as mobster, offering protection services to existing businesses.
Moreover, attending one of Iowa’s 27 cosmetology schools can cost as much as $22,000—a significant barrier for a working mother...
Becoming licensed in cosmetology requires a high school education (or its equivalent) and finishing at least 2,100 hours of coursework, or roughly 490 days.
Gee I wonder who lobbied for all these requirements?
When I was in High School, there was a whole cosmetology program for anybody who wanted to enter the field. There were course credits toward graduation. That was the mid-1980's. It seemed most popular with the suburban Italian girls.
But that was when there was still shop, autos, and trades taught at the high school level. Now its all just college prep so you can move on and get brainwashed by campus liberalism.
damikesc said...
Good. Get rid of that nonsense. The market will kill off terrible beauticians more quickly than the state ever could.
As I always said, the market killed Enron. The government would've propped them up if possible.
11/2/15, 9:10 AM
Agreed! Good for them, hope they win and I hope every other "restricted through Government fiat" area has citizens do more of the same. Lawfare for freedom!
As an unqualified emergency animal dental control driver, I'm glad.
EMT:
Requirements for License:An applicant must be at least 17 years of age, proficient in reading, writing, and speaking English, and must have successfully completed a course in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). He/she must have a minimum of 118 classroom and clinical hours, ambulance/rescue field experience hours as may be required by the training program, and must successfully complete a state written and practical exam."
2015 Iowa Board of Cosmetology License Requirements
COSMETOLOGIST LICENSE: 2100 Hours
BARBER LICENSE: Contact the Iowa Board of Barbering
ESTHETICIAN LICENSE: 600 Hours#mce_temp_url#
NAIL TECHNICIAN LICENSE: 325 Hours
ELECTROLOGIST LICENSE: 400 Hours
COSMETOLOGY INSTRUCTOR LICENSE: Cosmetology License + 1000 Hours Instructor Training OR 2 Years Work Experience in Last 6 Years
MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE: 500 Hours
Cosmetologists? Lets not even start on the funeral parlor protectionists.
I, for one, look forward to the day I can be dead and cremated for $99.99 without all that fuss and bother of a $10,000 funeral. Well, not look forward to the event, but to the low, low cost.
I used to be a regular donor to the Institute for Justice. But over time I came to dislike judicial activism even more than I dislike stupid restraints on trade.
it's all fun and games until somebody loses and eye. there's always a reason, and most of the time it's because a one-off (or very rare) event happens and "by God, it ain't gonna happen again." it's not JUST a "protection" racquet in the criminal conspiracy sense, but it's a protection racquet in the nanny-state sense of the word. as long as we live in a society where the government is supposed to keep us safe from our own decisions, any roll it back is a pause.
"Businesses need to be regulated.
Otherwise they'd make money.
We can't allow that."
(one of the usual suspects)
Government is just a name for the things we do together,
Like graft.
There seems to be a Milton Friedman Capitalism and Freedom theme today.
Regulation schemes always begin with good intentions, public safety being foremost, and always evolve into turf protection schemes.
Apparently there was insufficient room for graft.
Good for them, good for IJ. I'm glad I donated to IJ.
Grease wouldn't be the same with the song was Beauty School Loan Defaulter.
As much as I think such licensing is absurd, and as much as I have no sympathy for liberals complaining about conservative judicial activism, I'm failing to see this as a civil rights issue.
If Iowa wants to be a bureaucratic hellhole that is their business, not the federal government's.
Some very powerful people in government must have owned some salons. It's about keeping others out. It like trade unions with worse rationalization for the requirements.
It's disgusting that we entrust birthing, infant sexual mutilation, rearing and education to parents, who have no specific training or relevant certification. What's worse, we don't subject them to prior drug-screening or background checks in spite of the fact that a kid is more likely to be abused by parents and other relatives than by a stranger.
jimbino said...
It's disgusting that we entrust birthing, infant sexual mutilation, rearing and education to parents, who have no specific training or relevant certification. What's worse, we don't subject them to prior drug-screening or background checks in spite of the fact that a kid is more likely to be abused by parents and other relatives than by a stranger.
11/2/15, 3:14 PM
Well sure but it is not like they are trying to braid the hair of strangers...
OK, I'm on the hair braiders' side (and if you saw my hair, you'd know I have no personal interest in this issue), but what provision of the federal Constitution gives you the right to conduct a commercial activity without complying with the requirements imposed by the state? (IJ says the Iowa constitution has been interpreted to bar unreasonable restrictions, but I assume we are focusing here on federal law.)
"Old" Constitional conservatives (like me) have been saying that we don't want judges to overrule, on the basis of the judges' preferences, decisions made by democratically-elected governments. We argued, for example, that there was no basis for the courts to intefere with laws prohibiting or limiting abortion. "New" conservatives are asking judges to overrule decisions of democratically-elected governments that seem to the judges to be stupid and unreasonable. Is there a basis for distinguishing these two situations other than which side we think the judges will come down on?
Let them braid! Let them braid! Let them braid!
Braided hair matters!
the 14th Amendment. read the IJ briefs, they are on solid ground when they challenge these. the right to earn a living, the right to contract - they are fundamental. Read the monk selling coffin decisions
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-30756-CV1.wpd.pdf
"...but what provision of the federal Constitution gives you the right to conduct a commercial activity without complying with the requirements imposed by the state?"
The provision that I have that right unless the Constitution specifically gives the State power to take it from me after a process labeled as due. I am purposely conflating Federal and State and Local government as an entity referred to as "State" for reasons that shall remain ambiguous.
The Great William Frank Buckley Junior said once something along the lines of "I do not cede any of my rights to Government for any reason, I reserve them all, unqualified."
Or something like that. I don't think he meant, I could be mistaken, that if unusual and cruel punishment is enacted by a locality, which you can always move from if you don't like anyway, then it's okay if your rights to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be infringed in order to line the pockets of private sector lawyers and their treasury-raping unelected bureaucrats who frequently literally whimsically create the Law as they go now, with a full backing of the Executive ('till the Expiration date of Obama's words of course).
Or do you believe the Constitution is one of positive rights, concerning citizens and their relation to their local and state Governments?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा