12-27-2009, 01:52 PM
Rob,
I certainly agree that just about anyone with a basic wiring/plumbing book in hand can do the work for themselves, however, if we argued competence we’d ultimately end up proving that no training was necessary at all and anyone could do this work at any time for anyone. It seems a long hard argument direction to take and unlikely to succeed for a legal argument. Aside from this; the judiciary would already know that most people can do this work properly for themselves and a competence test would not be necessary in this case.
If this is taken to court, the argument would first focus on the States intent for forming the statute (it indicates safety) and then it would ultimately take into consideration the actions of self sustenance which is among man’s most fundamental act to exercise, “right”. From there it would be a matter of comparing the intrusion of the right to the level of safety in question. In this case the statutes intent is outlined clearly in the state Statutes themselves and it indicates safety. The courts have already set precedence’s regarding the takings of rights and to what level of safety must be at stake in order to remove and or regulate the right. The level of safety must be Public related and must pose a threat to a fairly large sector of the public with regard to the right exercised. Building a nuclear reactor or a large hydro electric dam would be examples of things that would be at the level of a general public safety issue. Needless to say, wiring your own home could in no way pose a threat to the general public nor could doing your own plumbing, not at a level favorable to meet the test for removal of the right.
Regulation of the “act” with regard to business is well within the States powers but removing the “right” from the homeowner is not, because, the safety in question is not adequate enough to fall under the States interests with regard to the private citizen acting for themselves.
I certainly agree that just about anyone with a basic wiring/plumbing book in hand can do the work for themselves, however, if we argued competence we’d ultimately end up proving that no training was necessary at all and anyone could do this work at any time for anyone. It seems a long hard argument direction to take and unlikely to succeed for a legal argument. Aside from this; the judiciary would already know that most people can do this work properly for themselves and a competence test would not be necessary in this case.
If this is taken to court, the argument would first focus on the States intent for forming the statute (it indicates safety) and then it would ultimately take into consideration the actions of self sustenance which is among man’s most fundamental act to exercise, “right”. From there it would be a matter of comparing the intrusion of the right to the level of safety in question. In this case the statutes intent is outlined clearly in the state Statutes themselves and it indicates safety. The courts have already set precedence’s regarding the takings of rights and to what level of safety must be at stake in order to remove and or regulate the right. The level of safety must be Public related and must pose a threat to a fairly large sector of the public with regard to the right exercised. Building a nuclear reactor or a large hydro electric dam would be examples of things that would be at the level of a general public safety issue. Needless to say, wiring your own home could in no way pose a threat to the general public nor could doing your own plumbing, not at a level favorable to meet the test for removal of the right.
Regulation of the “act” with regard to business is well within the States powers but removing the “right” from the homeowner is not, because, the safety in question is not adequate enough to fall under the States interests with regard to the private citizen acting for themselves.