Thank you for that insight donna.
Thinking out loud ...
If I understand the referenced article correctly, please consider the following.
"One of her braiders reportedly did not have a government license to braid hair in her shop and that runs afoul of the Tennessee Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners policy [??? emphasis added]."
On one hand, the seemingly harsh fine seems to be based on constitutionally unchecked, 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state powers.
On the other hand, just as the corrupt federal Congress unconstitutionally front-ends “federal” regulatory powers with non-elected, regulation-making bureaucrats, many such regulations not only based on stolen state powers, but non-elected bureaucrat regulators wrongly nullifying the voting power of ordinary voters imo, consider this.
If Tennessee cosmetologists and barbers for example, cannot use their voting power to choose their regulators, then such agencies are wrongly nullifying voting power imo.
"In 2012, a Utah woman who braids hair to supplement her family’s income won a federal lawsuit against the state over its licensing process for her craft, arguing state regulations violated her right to earn a living [??? emphasis added].
The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect earning a living as a right. Corrections, insights welcome.
A federal judge ruled that the state’s requirement that Jestina Clayton get a cosmetology license to braid hair was “unconstitutional and invalid” because regulations are irrelevant to Clayton’s profession [??? emphasis added]."
First, I don’t see where the feds have any jurisdiction in this case. And if such is the case, it can be argued that the federal judge was helping to expand the already unconstitutionally big federal government’s powers.
It can also be argued that the federal judge did not understand health concerns mentioned by donna which the states have the 10A-protected power to address.
Corrections, insights welcome.
If something is perceived as unjust enough, the system will attempt to work around it, even in an unorthodox manner.
Conservatives seem two faced to urge that everybody should earn a living and then stand for substantial irrelevant limitations on same. Yes, health regulations. Why does that need more school than to fly a plane which could fall on the public? Overdoing it tempts the invisible hand to operate in unorthodox ways.
Excellent analysis. I wonder if it started as self-regulation - and, did the courts step in first or did big government regulators butt in first.