Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Federal Bill to Loosen Licensing Requirements
Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 7/26/2016 | Jarrett Skorup

Posted on 07/29/2016 5:04:35 AM PDT by MichCapCon

A bill that could serve as a model for states looking to grant their residents economic freedom has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. The “Alternatives to Licensing that Lowers Obstacles to Work,” or ALLOW Act was submitted by Sen. Mike Lee R-Utah and Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb.

If passed, the law would allow members of the armed services and their spouses to use their occupational license in any state or military base. This would help many people, including my sister, who recently married a member of the military and is moving from one state to another. As a teacher, my sister is licensed in one state, but sometimes that license doesn’t transfer to other states. Hairdressers, cosmetologists, contractors and many other professionals often cannot transfer their license easily and have to go back, take more classes and pay high fees simply to be able to do what they were already licensed to do.

This bill would also put in “sunrise” and “sunset” provisions for licensing laws (which would ensure that they are regularly reviewed), restrict arbitrary licensing laws in Washington D.C., allow people to legally operate as tour guides in some federal parks without a license and more.

The state of Michigan could pass a similar law on its own. But an even easier bill would allow teeth whiteners to operate legally without needing a dental license. This would ensure the state is complying with the U.S. Constitution.

In many states, including Michigan, teeth whiteners — people who typically set up kiosks to offer whitening services — are restricted from practice unless they are a licensed dentist or operating under one. But a 2015 Supreme Court case changed this: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC held that “a state occupational licensing board that was primarily composed of persons active in the market it regulates has immunity from antitrust law only when it is actively supervised by the state.”

In other words, a board of dentists is not allowed to pass rules restricting their competition. Michigan’s licensing agency has confirmed that its interpretation of state law would not allow teeth whiteners to operate a business without a dental license. The Institute for Justice, which has been involved in the issue for years, has model legislation for states to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: rules

1 posted on 07/29/2016 5:04:35 AM PDT by MichCapCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
by Sen. Mike Lee R-Utah and Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb.

Ah, the nevertrump crowd. The guys who tried to steal the nomination from Trump live on TV.

Anything proposed by those 2 GOPe stooges should be treated with complete suspicion.

2 posted on 07/29/2016 5:20:05 AM PDT by sailor76 (GO TRUMP!!! Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
Thus the standard of all states will be degraded to the level of the state of the poorest standards. Nice. The Federal government interferes with the home rule law of all states.

I say, stick it in your eye.

3 posted on 07/29/2016 5:21:34 AM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

Took the words out of my mouth... special rights simply because a spouse chooses to work for the Feds! States have state specific knowledge requirements that will necessarily be deleted to normalize tests across the entire country... Plumbing is far different in the northeast than in the southwest... real estate laws are different everywhere... etc. etc.


4 posted on 07/29/2016 5:27:20 AM PDT by oscar_diggs (First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oscar_diggs

And who are the federal legislators representing? Their own constituency, or some other unrelated interests?


5 posted on 07/29/2016 5:39:30 AM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
Q: And who are the federal legislators representing?

A: Their own constituency, or some other unrelated interests?
6 posted on 07/29/2016 7:22:32 AM PDT by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: oscar_diggs
But think of the opportunities for local government revenue enhancement that would crop up under this legislation.

Wheatfield, Indiana, could sell taxi licenses that would be good in New York City; New York City could sell timber inspection licenses that would be good in Sitka, Alaska. The opportunities are endless.

7 posted on 07/29/2016 7:31:30 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
Their own constituency, or some other unrelated interests?

Lawyers and regulators, I think.

8 posted on 07/29/2016 9:11:56 AM PDT by Edward.Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Edward.Fish; i_robot73

I guess y’all got it right.


9 posted on 07/29/2016 10:06:14 AM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson