[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Family Removes Alexa Devices After a Stranger in Another Town Heard Everything They Were Saying

Tariffs Aren't Saving Steel Towns

Atlanta Suburb Brags About Fines for Chipped Paint and Incorrectly Stacked Wood

NFL’s National Anthem Policy Exposes Free Speech Hypocrisy of Right, Left, and Trump

Locking guns won't do anything to save lives BY JOHN LOTT, JR.,

KIM JONG UN CAVES TO TRUMP!! [Kim wants a summit "at any time"]

Trump to cut foreign aid for home countries of illegal immigrants

The Great German Meltdown by Victor Davis Hanson

Pharmaceutical Murder – Mass Shootings Caused by Drugs!

The plot against Donald Trump

Haspel Is Not the Problem. The CIA Is the Problem.

This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories

SWAT Team Raids WRONG House, Nearly Kills Dad, Injures 6-year-old Boy With Flash Grenade

Ron Paul: Republicans, Democrats Teaming Up for Federal Gun Confiscation Bill

NFL Players WILL Respect the Flag's Authoritah, Says Commissioner

Trump lawyer 'paid by Ukraine' to arrange White House talks

FBI Agent at Mike Flynn Interrogation Is Ready to Testify Against McCabe, Strzok and Comey!

96-Year-Old WWII Vet in a Wheelchair, Groped & Molested by TSA—For "Freedom"

This Is Why Evangelical Christians Love Israel

St. Louis Town Agrees to Stop Bankrolling Itself by Fining Its Residents into the Poorhouse

A Nation of Narcs

Surveillance Target Sam Clovis Discusses His Contacts With FBI/CIA Intelligence Agent Stefan Halper

Stormy Daniels' Lawyer Ordered To Pay $10 Million Fine In Legal Feud

New Poll Shows GOP Now Leads In 2018 Generic Ballot

Portsmouth man added "copyright" and his screen name to his child porn, feds say

Can a pope change moral truth?

The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution... ·

Investigators Admit Victims in Texas Shooting Could’ve Been Killed by Police Fire

Innocent Man Detained, Assaulted by Cops Because He Had ‘Vegetation’ on His Window

La Jolla hardware store forced to stop giving away free popcorn

Pompeo to Iran: Get ready for "strongest sanctions in history"

Germany’s military is dysfunctional and they have no plans to fix it

ISIS Militants Leave Damascus Under Evacuation Deal As Assad Takes Full Control Of Capital

At the royal wedding, why was the heretic allowed to give the homily?

Dershowitz on Russia Probe: 'They’re All Longterm Reps Who Hated Trump!'

Here's How Much The Federal Government Paid Alleged Trump Campaign 'Spy' In 2016

Don't mess with bears

How Trump Can Dismantle Obamacare Without Congress

Worker Co-Ops Are Wildly Successful But U.S. Media Ignores them

Why Socrates Hated Democracy

Europe may be realizing America isn’t their sugar daddy or punching bag

Has China succumbed to the art of the deal?

John Bolton: We May Punish Europe If They Don’t Pull Out Of Iran Deal Too

Stop Calling the GOP the Party of Small Government

FEDS DROP BOMBSHELL: Comey & Lynch Colluded Entrap, Wiretap Trump

Bad news for green energy lovers: US oil & gas are booming

Poles Blasting EU for Gay Flag

Santa Fe High School shooting: Suspect identified as Dimitrios Pagourtzis

As The Church Slept, Satan Crept In And The Masses Embraced The Doctrines Of Demons

Geoengineering Is ‘Being Used As A Weapon; An All-Out Assault Against Life’


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Louisiana Is Determined to Keep You Safe from Rogue Florists
Source: Foundation For Economic Education
URL Source: https://fee.org/articles/louisiana- ... -you-safe-from-rogue-florists/
Published: May 16, 2018
Author: Charles Hughes
Post Date: 2018-05-16 09:40:56 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 334
Comments: 40

With Mother’s Day upon us, people are wondering what to get their mothers as a token of appreciation. Flowers are a classic gift. Beautiful bouquets are available everywhere, but customers in Louisiana are unique in that their florists must obtain licenses to practice their profession. After a bill that would have repealed the licensing requirement was defeated in the State Senate Agriculture Committee by a 6 to 1 vote this week, licensing will remain the case for the immediate future.

Louisiana should remove this licensing requirement for florists. It would create more opportunities for would-be florists, and lower prices for people looking for flower arrangements, regardless of the occasion.

Occupational Licensing Run Amok

While unfortunate, it perhaps should not be surprising that the repeal bill did not pass, as the state has a penchant for occupational licensing. Louisiana tied with Washington for the most occupations licensed in a recent report from the Institute for Justice, requiring licenses for 77 out of 102 occupations included. A study from the Archbridge Institute found that from 1993 to 2012 Louisiana had the largest increase in the number of low-income occupations that were newly licensed.

These findings were one factor spurring renewed interest in reviewing and potentially reforming the licensing framework in the state, with the Baton Rouge Advocate reporting that the bill had enjoyed support from a broad coalition including Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards, Republican State Representative Julie Emerson, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry.

Even with this support, the bill garnered only one vote in committee. Incumbent florists objected strenuously to the bill, and one florist said that “Having a license is not a barrier… To say you are a licensed florist sets you apart in the industry."

It is difficult to see how requiring every florist in the state to obtain a license can set them apart, since everyone has to have a license. To obtain the required florist license, people have to pay $189 in fees and take an exam. These fees serve as a barrier for some seeking to earn supplemental income, as might the time required to prepare and take the exam.

It's Not Just Florists, Either

These barriers can be seen when looking at another occupation at the center of licensing reform efforts in the state: hair braiding. In 2012 Mississippi, which only requires hair braiders to register with the state, had 1,245 working hair braiders.

Meanwhile, Louisiana, which required 500 training hours for a license, had only 32. The burdens associated with the license for florists are not as arduous, but these requirements do serve as barriers for people seeking to enter the occupation.

In most professions, incumbents and proponents of licensing attempt to make the case that safety is the motivating factor for the license, but those arguments would strain credulity when it comes to designing bouquets. Instead, warnings about licensing reform here are that it would “denigrate the profession.”

Is Reform on the Horizon?

Beyond florists, the scope of occupational licensing in the United States has grown significantly over time, from about 5 percent of occupations in the 1950s to about 25 percent today. Recently, some states and federal entities have showed renewed interest in reviewing and potentially reforming the status quo. For example, the state legislature in Nebraska just passed a bill requiring review of existing licenses to determine whether occupations require government intervention, and if so, that the license is the least restrictive form of regulation that is feasible.

While these are positive developments, Louisiana fell short in what should have been one of the more incremental and uncontroversial areas for improvement of any occupation in any state, and it will continue to be the only state in the nation that licenses florists.

The setback in Louisiana should lead more people to ask whether they think it makes sense to require florists to obtain a license from the government. As more research regarding the adverse consequences of licensing is disseminated, and other states continue to make progress, perhaps Louisiana’s florist license requirement will be repealed.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

In our democracy, occupational licensing has long been used, all the way back to the early 19th Century, as a means of protectionism by local constituencies.

The Commerce Clause could be used to hammer it down, of course, but it's too popular to go easily.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   9:43:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

In our democracy, occupational licensing has long been used, all the way back to the early 19th Century, as a means of protectionism by local constituencies.

Come on. $189 is no deterrent. You can earn that back in a day.

How about New York City's taxi medallions that go for $1 million each? That's been going on for over 80 years. Now THAT'S protectionism.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-16   10:29:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: misterwhite (#2)

I recognize that occupational licensing, both the kind that makes sense and also the abusive kind, are inevitable parts of democratic government. People can agitate for what they want, and guilds and professions, and unions, have strong self-interest in running as closed shops as they can. Nowhere is this more visible than among lawyers and doctors.

Every state has a licensing board for doctors, and foreign doctors often have to struggle for years to get licensed because, you know, the human body is vastly different in Spain than it is in America.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   10:39:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

If you want to play the game, you agree to the rules of the game. You don't get to sign up and then demand changes.

This is what the citizens of Louisiana want. There are their rules. If you don't live in Louisiana, well, this is none of your business. State's rights, correct?

If you do live in Louisiana and you object, work to change the rules and stop yer bitchin'. I have never seen so many helpless posters in my life as those on this forum.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-16   11:06:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#1) (Edited)

The Commerce Clause could be used to hammer it down, of course, but it's too popular to go easily.

I never thought of that before but you could easily find thousands of instances where interstate trade is curtailed because of unnecessary and conflicting licensing requirements in various states.

You'd have to find the right case and catch the USSC in a cantankerous mood about unconstitutional regulation and restraint of trade.     : )

If only we could dump Anthony Kennedy this year. I'm starting to think we aren't going to be that lucky.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-05-16   12:10:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#4)

You don't get to sign up and then demand changes.

Yes you do. The nature of democratic politics is that every single thing is always negotiable, and every single rule can be changed, even reversed, if you can get enough people in the right positions of power to change the rule.

That could be a bare majority on a city council, or a state legislature, or Congress (with 60 votes in the Senate). Or it could be a single regulator with regulation writing authority, or a single judge, or five justices of the Supreme Court, or an enforcer who decides to not enforce it, or conversely, who decides to enforce it to a maximal standard beyond what the original advocates of the rule wanted or intended.

No rule is set in stone forever. Every one can be challenged, overturned and replaced. And everybody has the right to agitate against rules he hates.

But if you decide not to FOLLOW the rule, and some enforcer decides to enforce it on you, you're stuck.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   13:19:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Tooconservative (#5) (Edited)

If only we could dump Anthony Kennedy this year. I'm starting to think we aren't going to be that lucky.

Before Trump leaves office we're going to replace Kennedy and Ginsburg. IF he puts pro-lifers up there, Roe will be teed up for extinction.

And then the question will be the grounds.

If they're cranky conservatives who really want to protect it, they'll strike it down on 9th and 10th Amendment grounds, and the issue will return to the states...where all of the populous ones except maybe Texas will enact abortion on demand.

On the other hand, if they strike down abortion as a violation of the human rights of the unborn person, it can be banned nationwide on a constitutional basis.

Obviously I favor the latter approach. It will probably take Catholics to do it. So we need more Catholics up there for this.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   13:20:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)

If they're cranky conservatives who really want to protect it, they'll strike it down on 9th and 10th Amendment grounds, and the issue will return to the states...where all of the populous ones except maybe Texas will enact abortion on demand.

Not Texas either. For all the pro-lifers in these Red states, none will actually try a ban. You recall that even the pro-lifers of SD some years back recoiled from such legislation.

I think you'd see a lot more in the Red states of outlawing third-trimester abortion unless a panel of independent doctors insisted that the life of the mother was significantly at risk if the pregnancy was continued.

If that was the result of striking down Roe, you'd then see fights in various states of whether to push the abortion limit from the third trimester back to the fifth month and that would be the abortion battleground in that state (or states).

And the lib states would embrace the current policy: unlimited abortion on demand and with a strong preference for taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-05-16   13:28:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Tooconservative (#8)

Which is why we need a panel of Catholics to declare the personhood of the unborn, preventing their abortion for any reason on constitutional due process grounds.

That, and vigorous enforcement of the law afterwards, is what is required to actually STOP most abortion.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   13:35:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9) (Edited)

Which is why we need a panel of Catholics to declare the personhood of the unborn, preventing their abortion for any reason on constitutional due process grounds.

They can do that any time they want. They just won't do it.

We already have a pack of Catholics on the Court. It doesn't seem to get the job done.

I'd prefer upcoming appointments to be non-Catholic. Catholics already are considerably over-represented on the Court anyway.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-05-16   13:41:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Tooconservative (#10)

They can do that any time they want. They just won't do it.

You're right. They won't.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   13:59:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

The nature of democratic politics is that every single thing is always negotiable, and every single rule can be changed, even reversed, if you can get enough people in the right positions of power to change the rule.

The time to do that is before you sign up.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-16   16:38:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

Which is why we need a panel of Catholics to declare the personhood of the unborn, preventing their abortion for any reason on constitutional due process grounds.

The solution is to turn the issue over to the states -- like it was before. Easier to declare the personhood of the unborn at the state level.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-16   16:41:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite (#13)

Easier to declare the personhood of the unborn at the state level.

No, that takes 50 decisions, and it allows some states to go right on murdering babies because the people there want to.

No, the easiest way to amend the Constitution, by far, is to get 5 Supreme Court Justices to pronounce that abortion is unconstitutional because it deprives the unborn person of life without due process, and that because the unborn person cannot commit crime, it is impossible to assert that there is a basis on which he or she may be deprived of life, regardless of process, thereby banning abortion in all 50 states, as a matter of the Constitution, and removing the issue from democratic oversight, unless somebody can get 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and 37 states to agree to amend the Constitution...or the other side gets 5 Supremes.

The ends justify the means.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   17:00:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#12)

The time to do that is before you sign up.

Nope. All laws and rules are subject to change at all times, on the whim of the people with the power to set the laws. That's democracy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   17:01:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwrong, outs himse!f once again as anticonstitutional (#4)

This is what the citizens of Louisiana want. There are their rules. If you don't live in Louisiana, well, this is none of your business. State's rights, correct?

If you do live in Louisiana and you object, work to change the rules and stop yer bitchin'. I have never seen so many helpless posters in my life as those on this forum. --- misterwrong

Incorrect. States do not have the power or 'rights' to infringe on citizens rights, according to the supremacy clause of the Constitution..

I have never seen so many posters in my life as those on this forum, --- who realize that misterwrong is a troll.

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-16   17:43:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#14)

Vicomte13 (#7) ---- If they're cranky conservatives who really want to protect it, they'll strike it down on 9th and 10th Amendment grounds, and the issue will return to the states...where all of the populous ones except maybe Texas will enact abortion on demand.

Not Texas either. For all the pro-lifers in these Red states, none will actually try a ban. You recall that even the pro-lifers of SD some years back recoiled from such legislation. --- TC

Vic ----- No, the easiest way to amend the Constitution, by far, is to get 5 Supreme Court Justices to pronounce that abortion is unconstitutional because it deprives the unborn person of life without due process, and that because the unborn person cannot commit crime, it is impossible to assert that there is a basis on which he or she may be deprived of life, regardless of process, thereby banning abortion in all 50 states, as a matter of the Constitution, and removing the issue from democratic oversight, ----- The ends justify the means.

Supreme Court opinions are not 'pronouncements', and do NOT alter the Constitution, despite your daffy opinion, and that "ends justify the means".

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-16   18:03:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#15) (Edited)

That's democracy.

No, That's duplicity -- accepting something under one set of conditions then, once attained, attempting to change it to suit your selfish needs.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-16   18:52:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#14)

No, that takes 50 decisions, and it allows some states to go right on murdering babies because the people there want to.

It makes it easier for you to at least ban abortions in your state. If some states go right on murdering babies because the people there want to, that's called "the will of the people". No different than the way things are now and will be in the foreseeable future.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-16   19:01:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

All laws and rules are subject to change at all times, on the whim of the people with the power to set the laws. That's democracy.

Vicomte13

And in our Republic, this version of 'democracy' is one we fight against.. --- Our Constitution prevents the whims of the people from changing it by infringements on individual liberties..

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-16   19:09:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: tpaine (#17)

For all fuctional purposes, Supreme Court opinions are the Constitution.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   19:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)

Vic ----- No, the easiest way to amend the Constitution, by far, is to get 5 Supreme Court Justices to pronounce that abortion is unconstitutional because it deprives the unborn person of life without due process, and that because the unborn person cannot commit crime, it is impossible to assert that there is a basis on which he or she may be deprived of life, regardless of process, thereby banning abortion in all 50 states, as a matter of the Constitution, and removing the issue from democratic oversight, ----- The ends justify the means.

Supreme Court opinions are not 'pronouncements', and do NOT alter the Constitution, despite your daffy opinion, and that "ends justify the means". --- tpaine

For all fuctional purposes, Supreme Court opinions are the Constitution.

Lots of misguided people say that, but in fact our States have enormous powers, -- which unfortunately, many States abuse, trying to enact prohibitions on basic rights, just like the deep state feds..

Socialism is a disease...

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-16   19:40:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#21)

For all fuctional purposes, Supreme Court opinions are the Constitution.

Unfortunately, that is mostly true.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-05-16   19:46:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: misterwhite (#19)

Nope. Right now abortion at will is the law everywhere, headless of the will of the local people, because of the Supreme Court. No abortion can also be the rule everywhere, because of the same Supreme Court. And that’s the right answer, so I’m hoping that the Supreme Court bans it everywhere, just as they forced it everywhere. And if the people don’t like it? The people don’t like Kelo either. But the Supreme Court has the last word unless you can get huge supermajorities to override it. On abortion there are no supermajorities either way, so whatever the Supremes rule will be a he supreme law of the land.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   19:47:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: tpaine (#20)

Our Constitution is what we see, from FDR to Roe to Lincoln to Obama to Kelo. It’s got a very few ideas most people agree on to an extent, and everything else is as hoc and determined by power and politics.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   19:49:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: tpaine (#22)

The states lost most of their power when a bunch of them tried to secede over slavery and were dragged back in by federal power. That means that the losing side can’t leave unless it can win in war, which means the submission of liberals to conservatives, or vice versa, whoever rules the roost at a given time. There is no exit option short of winning a war of secession, and that’s impossible, so it all comes down to politics, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of everything.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   19:53:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)

For all fuctional purposes, Supreme Court opinions are the Constitution. --- Vic

Lots of misguided people say that, but in fact our States have enormous powers, -- which unfortunately, many States abuse, trying to enact prohibitions on basic rights, just like the deep state feds.. Socialism is a disease...--- tpaine

The states lost most of their power when a bunch of them tried to secede over slavery and were dragged back in by federal power. That means that the losing side can’t leave unless it can win in war, which means the submission of liberals to conservatives, or vice versa, whoever rules the roost at a given time. There is no exit option short of winning a war of secession, and that’s impossible, so it all comes down to politics, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of everything.- Vic

Your unusually short opinion on States powers, claiming their only recourse to Supreme Court opinions is civil war, ---- is silly..

Calif and NY, among others, are currently openly defying opinions on the 2nd, with no action by the Court.. Can you explain why?

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-16   20:29:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: tpaine (#27)

Yes, I can explain why. Those states have huge liberal majorities, but the conservative majority at the federal level is very tenuous and divided, and there's an election coming. So, you have very strong local opinions in those states, versus a weak and divided center. It's the same with sanctuary cities and marijuana legalization. Federal law is clear, and Presidents COULD send in paramilitary forces to kick ass and take names. But Republicans want to hold SOME seats from Colorado and California. And there are liberal Republicans. So the will doesn't exist to enforce those particular laws against a gradient of ferocious opposition.

Liberals don't enforce laws they violently oppose. Conservatives don't either. They choose to emphasize other things.

There are very few issues on which the dominant federal party has been willing to forcibly impose on a strongly resistant regional opposition. Coal regulation is one of them. Black-white racial issues have been the main one. More recently, everything related to gays has become a nationalized issue, because the Left was willing to use power to compel states. They also lost control of government, perhaps as a result.

Republicans are not willing to spend the political capital to go and impose liberal gun laws on California.

Everything is political.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-16   22:26:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)

Your unusually short opinion on States powers, claiming their only recourse to Supreme Court opinions is civil war, ---- is silly..

Calif and NY, among others, are currently openly defying opinions on the 2nd, with no action by the Court.. Can you explain why? --- tpaine

Yes. --- Federal law is clear, and Presidents COULD send in paramilitary forces to kick ass and take names.

Republicans are not willing to spend the political capital to go and impose liberal gun laws on California. -- Vic

Liberal gun laws? I can believe you meant :--- "Republicans are not willing to spend the political capital to go and impose (constitutional) gun laws on California".

But like your belief that Presidents have the power to wage paramilitary war on States, I'd bet you're just being silly again.

What the hell is going on with you? Has your weird cousin gotten access to your machine?

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-16   23:39:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Vicomte13 (#24)

Right now abortion at will is the law everywhere, headless of the will of the local people, because of the Supreme Court.

No. Because of Roe v Wade. Overturn Roe v Wade and the decision goes back to the states.

But not only do you want to overturn Roe v Wade (as people have tried and failed to do for the last 45 years), you want the court to rule that the fetus has the rights of a citizen.

You're making it more difficult to get what you want.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-17   9:31:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: misterwhite (#30)

But not only do you want to overturn Roe v Wade (as people have tried and failed to do for the last 45 years), you want the court to rule that the fetus has the rights of a citizen.

You're making it more difficult to get what you want.

No, I'm not. You don't like the solution I am aiming at, so you're PRETENDING that the Supreme Court is somehow and in some fashion limited to reversing Roe, just like that, and throwing it back to the states.

The limitation you would place does not exist.

The Supreme Court can overrule Roe, with 5 votes, on any basis it wants to. It doesn't have to return things to the state of play before Roe. It can review the issues de novo, and decide that Roe was wrongly decided, because it denied the personhood of the unborn. It could then say that scientific developments since then have clearly demonstrated the personhood of the unborn, and that therefore, as a matter of the constitution, the unborn cannot be killed at all. This does not return the issue to the states. It keeps it up at the federal constitutional level just exactly as Roe did, eliminating any state voice in the matter. And it instantly strikes down abortion in every state as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court could determine that a human embryo becomes a "person" at any point that the five agreed. Conception. Heartbeat. Nervous system differentiation.

All the court would need to do is assert it, in an opinion, and BAM, just like that, abortion is outlawed as a matter of the Constitution in every state and territory, immediately, and the subject is still out of the hands of democracy.

That is BY FAR the EASIEST way to get to the result I want: it only takes 5 Justices to do it, just exactly like Roe.

Now, you don't like that result, so you're trying to tell me it would be harder. It's easier to get 5 like-minded people on one court than to win an argument before 50 legislatures, or to get 2/3rds of both houses of Congress plus 37 states to agree. The Rule of 5 - capture of the Supreme Court - is by far the easiest way to change the Constitution for all practical purposes.

The Supreme Court amended the Constitution in 1973 to impose abortion on demand on the whole country. No polity since has been able to break that constitutional rule. They have all been slapped down - by the Supreme Court upholding its own past judgment.

Supermajorities do not exist either way on the subject, so the Constitution proper cannot be amended.

On matters such as this, or guns I suppose, where the population is very divided and there are no Constitution-amending supermajorities for either side of the argument in Congress and in the States, the easiest and best way to get what you want is to get 5 Justices on the Supreme Court to vote your way.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-17   10:05:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: tpaine (#29)

Liberal gun laws? I can believe you meant :--- "Republicans are not willing to spend the political capital to go and impose (constitutional) gun laws on California".

But like your belief that Presidents have the power to wage paramilitary war on States, I'd bet you're just being silly again.

What the hell is going on with you? Has your weird cousin gotten access to your machine?

I make a clear distinction in my thinking between "can" and "ought". You don't. This makes it hard for you to understand me.

What has happened lately is that I've realized that my desire to find peace and common ground through pragmatic compromise is lost on the denizens of this site, who are almost all practically avatars for their own extreme positions, so I've just started to post exactly what I think, like everybody else here.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-17   10:14:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Vicomte13 (#31)

(STEP 1) It can review the issues de novo, and decide that Roe was wrongly decided, because it denied the personhood of the unborn. It could then say that scientific developments since then (STEP 2) have clearly demonstrated the personhood of the unborn, and that therefore, as a matter of the constitution, the unborn cannot be killed at all.

Tell me. How is that different than what I said you wanted to do?

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-17   10:50:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: misterwhite (#33)

No. Because of Roe v Wade. Overturn Roe v Wade and the decision goes back to the states.

But not only do you want to overturn Roe v Wade (as people have tried and failed to do for the last 45 years), you want the court to rule that the fetus has the rights of a citizen.

You're making it more difficult to get what you want.

Here is how it is different. You are telling me that having the court banish abortion completely in one decisions is HARDER than overturning Roe and sending the issue back to the states.

My objective is to ban abortion. It is far easier to ban abortion by one Supreme Court decision than it is by votes in places like California or New York, where they won't ban abortion.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-17   10:53:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Vicomte13 (#32)

What the hell is going on with you?

Vic ---- What has happened lately is that I've realized that my desire to find peace and common ground through pragmatic compromise is lost on the denizens of this site, who are almost all practically avatars for their own extreme positions, so I've just started to post exactly what I think, like everybody else here. ----- I make a clear distinction in my thinking between "can" and "ought". You don't. This makes it hard for you to understand me.

I have no problem understanding you now that you admit you've "just started to post exactly what I think"...

Good plan, - honesty is always the best policy....

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-17   11:46:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#34)

You are telling me that having the court banish abortion completely in one decisions is HARDER than overturning Roe and sending the issue back to the states.

Yes.

"It is far easier to ban abortion by one Supreme Court decision than it is by votes in places like California or New York, where they won't ban abortion."

I don't expect abortion will be banned by every state. It wasn't before. But I'll consider the banning of abortion by 48 states a major victory.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-17   11:54:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: misterwhite (#36)

I don't expect abortion will be banned by every state. It wasn't before. But I'll consider the banning of abortion by 48 states a major victory.

Abortion is murder. I demand that it be outlawed, as a matter of the Constitution, in every state of the Union and all of its territories. To do that requires a constitutional level rule, one that is federal in nature. Because the states will not do the right thing, the states cannot be granted jurisdiction over this matter.

The Supreme Court has the power, and the ability, in one single decision, to end the practice, just as they began it, and to keep the issue out of the democracy, just as they did with their original decision.

That is the fastest, neatest, shortest path to the correct outcome. Everything else will leave the country doing the same thing we did with slavery: leaving an open cesspool of evil in half the country, while the other half abolished it. It was unacceptable in the case of slavery: Americans do not have the right, under ANY circumstances, to vote that black people will be enslaved. And because there was no constitutional solution, we had to have a civil war to end slavery. Slavery was evil enough that a war to end it was appropriate.

The murder of children in the womb is of a comparable evil to slavery. Really, it's worse. The outcome is what is important in cases like this. The Supreme Court can get to the right outcome by a vote of 5. There is no other process in the American political outcome that can get to that result. The people in the several states will never vote for it, just as slavery would still be the law in some states today if the people got to vote on it. The people will never have the supermajorities needed to ban abortion, just as they never would have had the supermajorities to outright ban slavery.

And yet certain things, such as the enslavement and destruction of the liberty of a whole race of people, or the wholesale murder of infants for convenience, are such screaming moral crimes that they have to be ended. If the democracy won't do the right thing, and it didn't with slavery, then it has to be done another way. It took a million dead and the destruction of half the country to wipe out slavery. Stopping abortion should not take anything like that. 5 justices can do it, and should.

That's what I think.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-17   13:24:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: tpaine (#35)

I have no problem understanding you now that you admit you've "just started to post exactly what I think"...

Good plan, - honesty is always the best policy....

I was never being dishonest. I was being diplomatic. I was operating in a "real world" paradigm, where none of us gets most of what we want, and where we're all looking for "third best" or "least worst" compromise positions to move the flying wedge forward.

On this site, people don't think like that. They're avatars for various extreme positions. So the discussion isn't reality based, it's ideal-based.

Instead of trying to negotiate reasonable compromises, I have decided to become an avatar myself, advocating for my own view of exactly how each thing should be, and why.

Before, I expected to be understood for my moderation and my effort to bring warring positions to some sort of reasonable compromise.

But that's not why people come to this site, is it?

So now I'm just speaking in terms of "shoulds", and pointing out the advantages and barriers to obtaining what ought to be.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-17   14:29:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Vicomte13 (#37)

Abortion is murder.

If it was it would be illegal, right? Women and their doctors would be sent to prison, right? That's not happening.

So maybe in your opinion abortion is murder? In others' it's not. Now what?

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-17   16:26:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: misterwhite (#39)

If it was it would be illegal, right? Women and their doctors would be sent to prison, right? That's not happening.

So maybe in your opinion abortion is murder? In others' it's not. Now what?

Yep. Women who abort, their doctors, their nurses, people who pay for it - all prosecuted for premeditated murder. In states with the death penalty, they could be executed.

Now what? Well, now we go on being a murder-at-will country, unless and until 5 Supreme Court justices overturn Roe.

When they do, they will probably go ahead and send it back to the states, and we'll end up with the unsatisfactory answer I railed about above.

Abortion will remain the law of the land for a long time. The white birth rate will remain law and the immigrant birth rate very high. That gives a second bite at the apple down the road, as abortion is illegal in all of the Latin American countries except for Cuba. So maybe the rising Latino majority will stay Catholic enough to vote down abortion in the future.

Or they won't, in which case the abortionists will meet their maker with unshriven murder on them and pay for their sins in fiery Gehenna, and possibly the Lake of Fire after final judgment.

One way or another justice will be done. Perhaps not in the world.

As for me, I will continue to raise abortion as the cardinal evil of America, and continue to use it as the litmus test between good guys and bad guys in the present day, just as I use slavery and segregation as the good guys/bad guys litmus test for the folks who discuss the 1960s, and the 1860s.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-17   16:58:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com