For a very long time, I suffered the illusion that USA has very little or no corruption. Compared to India the context I am most familiar with, of course, it is very different scale, but it seems the USA has interesting internalised and legal methods of corruption. Most often this corruption is in favor of large corporations.
Lobbying is a very popular example. And large political donations. But that is the institution of democratic legislative branch, flawed everywhere. But when instances come from the judiciary, it makes me sit up and take notice.
As a disclaimer I am not a student of the law, and my commentary is nothing more than a reflection.
There is a provision in the judiciary of the US called the Rational Basis Test.
The level of judicial review for determining the constitutionality of a federal or state statute that does not implicate either a fundamental right or a suspect classification under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. When a court concludes that there is no fundamental liberty interest or suspect classification at stake, the law is presumed to be Constitutional unless it fails the rational basis test.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test
In its face it seems a very smart idea, why change status-quo unless it is impeding a fundamental right or constitution? It is great not to have excess laws and lawsuits, right? But in practice this law means that as soon as someone challenges the status quo, the judges and the representatives of the government put their heads together and try to figure out a way to make the existing law pass the Rational Basis Test. And the instances of how brashly and indelicately this is done will illuminate why I was moved to write about it. One instance, the only one I will discuss here, on top of my list of absurd, is the case of Louisiana Florists.
The source I am quoting here has a serious conflict of interest as they represent the firm that challenged the status quo, but I think they make a coherent case.
I will summarize the case here paraphrasing the source:
Louisiana is the only state in the nation to require florists to obtain a government-issued license before they may create and sell floral arrangements. In order to comply with the law, aspiring florists must take a test (sounds worse than Asia) judged by their future competition—licensed florists. The law makes it very difficult for new entrepreneurs to work as retail florists and gives existing florists protection form from new competition.
When this law was challenges by unlicensed florists, the judges and the lobbyists of licensed florists and government officials put their heads together and found a way to sustain this law by finding a way to make it pass the rational basis test. They came up with an incredible (and I do not use this word lightly) defense: The unlicensed florists arranging flowers pose threat to public safety!
Again, individuals who want to be florists need to pass a written and practical test, conducted by their competitors, to become florists because the arrangement of flowers presents a threat of danger to public.
The curious case of exploding flowers.
Read more here:
http://www.ij.org/freeing-louisiana-florists-licensing-law-is-blooming-nonsense
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/florist_licensing_requirement.html
Or listen:
http://cato.ramp.com/m/audio/34499291/the-right-to-earn-a-living.htm
Pic-credit:
http://www.booooooom.com/2009/05/12/ori-gersht-photography/
Lobbying is a very popular example. And large political donations. But that is the institution of democratic legislative branch, flawed everywhere. But when instances come from the judiciary, it makes me sit up and take notice.
As a disclaimer I am not a student of the law, and my commentary is nothing more than a reflection.
There is a provision in the judiciary of the US called the Rational Basis Test.
The level of judicial review for determining the constitutionality of a federal or state statute that does not implicate either a fundamental right or a suspect classification under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. When a court concludes that there is no fundamental liberty interest or suspect classification at stake, the law is presumed to be Constitutional unless it fails the rational basis test.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test
In its face it seems a very smart idea, why change status-quo unless it is impeding a fundamental right or constitution? It is great not to have excess laws and lawsuits, right? But in practice this law means that as soon as someone challenges the status quo, the judges and the representatives of the government put their heads together and try to figure out a way to make the existing law pass the Rational Basis Test. And the instances of how brashly and indelicately this is done will illuminate why I was moved to write about it. One instance, the only one I will discuss here, on top of my list of absurd, is the case of Louisiana Florists.
The source I am quoting here has a serious conflict of interest as they represent the firm that challenged the status quo, but I think they make a coherent case.
I will summarize the case here paraphrasing the source:
Louisiana is the only state in the nation to require florists to obtain a government-issued license before they may create and sell floral arrangements. In order to comply with the law, aspiring florists must take a test (sounds worse than Asia) judged by their future competition—licensed florists. The law makes it very difficult for new entrepreneurs to work as retail florists and gives existing florists protection form from new competition.
When this law was challenges by unlicensed florists, the judges and the lobbyists of licensed florists and government officials put their heads together and found a way to sustain this law by finding a way to make it pass the rational basis test. They came up with an incredible (and I do not use this word lightly) defense: The unlicensed florists arranging flowers pose threat to public safety!
Again, individuals who want to be florists need to pass a written and practical test, conducted by their competitors, to become florists because the arrangement of flowers presents a threat of danger to public.
The curious case of exploding flowers.
Read more here:
http://www.ij.org/freeing-louisiana-florists-licensing-law-is-blooming-nonsense
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/florist_licensing_requirement.html
Or listen:
http://cato.ramp.com/m/audio/34499291/the-right-to-earn-a-living.htm
Pic-credit:
http://www.booooooom.com/2009/05/12/ori-gersht-photography/
No comments:
Post a Comment