Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
There are few fundamental rights regarding the bill of rights in this country that rise to this level that are violated. However; one right has always been for the citizens of this nation the fundamental right to engage in the necessary acts to build ones own home in all aspects. This has always been a fundamental right in this nation according to the Supreme Court but unfortunately there are still a small handful of States that are either not aware of this fact or would rather deny the rights of its citizens for the purposes of special interests.
It’s now time to put an end to this Constitutional rights violation in the State of Hawaii.
I’ve never had to have one of these issues publicly funded.
Let’s get the laws repealed regarding the denial of allowing an owner builder to acquire the permits to engage in and do their own electrical and plumbing. Would also like to repeal the owner builder automatic designation to contractor status should they elect to build their own home.
How do we go about setting up a legal fund to go after the State in court?
Anyone who like to be involved in this; drop me an e-mail and we’ll get the ball rolling on the matter.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 2,314
Threads: 59
Joined: Jun 2003
I don't think it has anything to do with the fundamental right, I think it's a safety issue.
Aloha,
John S. Rabi, GM,PB,ABR,CRB,CM,FHS
808.327.3185
johnrabi@johnrabi.com
http://www.JohnRabi.com
Typically Tropical Properties
"The Next Level of Service!"
Posts: 6,214
Threads: 354
Joined: Feb 2006
I think I missed that in S.S. class, or mention of building ones house may not be in the Bill of Rights (and I had an indepth refresher on the US Constitution last year, when I got to sub long term for an 8th grade U.S. History teacher.
I may be wrong about the subject, but here is the link for the Bill of RIghts:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...ights.html
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
John... it has everything to do with fundamental rights and there are no factual safety issues involved (not to the level of the "general public"). Read the Supreme Court ruling on these matters, there's a slew of them.
Carey... Here's the part you've missed.
First I expressed this - "This has always been a fundamental right in this nation according to the Supreme Court..."
Not that it was directly in the bill of rights; however there is an Amendment that covers it. See Amendment 9 of the Bill of Rights.
"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It's a recognized basic fundamental right by the Supreme Court.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 1,839
Threads: 48
Joined: May 2007
John,
Safety issue be damned. Individual liberty is being denied for the protection of trade by the licensed contractors. It is B.S.
I was held hostage by a plumbing contractor who attempted to extort $ from me for services that I had already paid for.
I should have the right to build my own house, wire it, plumb it and if the building inspector finds errors then I can fix 'em. It's a racket.
I am with you, Wao.
Burns me no end. Dan
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Safety is often an issue cited through ignorance and often attempted to be argued legally without merit when done without true public safety interests on a rather large scale.
Wiring and or plumbing ones own house does not rise to the level of a general public safety issue, not at all and even under the most diverse circumstances it could only be cited indirectly at best on a very limited scale. How much more is ones right to bear arms a general public safety issue? Somewhere in there someone stands up and says such a basic fundamental right to a DIY project is a safety issue and yet they ignore the fact that you have the right to bear arms, drive an automobile, operate a boat, fly an ultra light plane, etc… pick any potentially dangerous thing you like where one could potentially snuff the life from a few innocent people in public, I know there’s a slew of them and the above was merely a warm up and these are unarguably direct public safety issues, yet, you’ve the right to do them.
No… this State legislated issue has to do with one thing and one thing only. If the State cannot tax the electrician and the plumber who would have worked on your house, then the State does not gain that potential income. It may also have been inspired by the unions to secure more work for the union employees and they stuffed money in the pockets of some corrupt legislatures. In either of the aforementioned scenarios - it’s a special interest inspired code and not worth the paper it was drafted on, not constitutionally speaking. Takings of rights are only allowed under very strict circumstances and there’s no chance in Heaven or Hell that the State of Hawaii could legitimately argue a public safety related issue that contained an ounce of merit. Few to no States in this country are stupid enough to deny such fundamental rights and we do not have a greater number of unsafe houses in this nation nor general public safety issues because John Doe built, wired and plumbed his own home with a permit and it was inspected. LAUGHING MY BUTT OFF RIGHT HERE, PAR FOR THE COURSE, not across this nation, but we certainly have a slew of dangerous homes in Hawaii because of these ignorantly stupid minded unconstitutional codes! See how the knife of taking away rights works? It's a sure fire way to screw up things for public safety related issues when things DON'T get checked. So indeed the Hawaii State code is indeed without argument destructive towards it's own end and a menace to the people of the state not to mention a very clear takings.
“There is no such thing as “a right to a job”-there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.”
And there’s no such thing as State Rights, Rights of the State, Union Rights, Electrician and Plumbers Rights.
Just as there was no and is no POWER given by the people to States to pass laws that will insure one group of people will be insured work at the expense of taking away the rights of the individual citizens to do things for themselves.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 229
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2009
We are controlled by laws that always deal with the lowest common denominator.
They try to control firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens, yet the same laws are unenforceable against criminals.
They screen 90 year old ladies at the airport because of a string of incidents involving 20-30 year old muslim men.
Shopping malls don't allow a 45 year old bald guy to wear his favorite baseball cap to cover his head, because the young gangsters use the hats to identify other gang members.
They pass nationalized healthcare because 6 percent of the population has fallen thru the cracks.
They insist on controlling every aspect of your home's construction, because by law we are too stupid to know how to build anything.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Here’s the supposed route to take with regard to this issue.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5075165_set-up-l...-fund.html
We need to establish a plaintiff base and remember the recent ruling by the Supreme Court where a father was allowed to act as a plaintiff regarding prayer in schools even though he himself was not in school himself nor was he the legal guardian of the child. The court ruled that any individual may take a case to court if the issue violates the fundamental rights of another and it need not affect the plaintiff directly or indirectly.
Who out there would be willing to act as a plaintiff regarding this matter? You don’t have to be an owner builder to be a plaintiff. I will act as one of the plaintiffs but it would be better if we had several plaintiffs in this matter because it’s a public interest issue and not just a personal issue.
When we establish a handful of potential plaintiffs, we can begin to plan the funding direction and such.
If you are irritated by these types of codes, this is exactly where and when you can help end one. Step up to the plate or continue to allow legislators to walk on you.
For those 60 and over out there… we need your support on this matter too, it’s time to step up and put an end to these sorts of intrusions and you know it.
Feel free to talk about it in this thread and or to write me and we’ll put a list of plaintiffs together and get things rolling.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Edit to remove county code as the offending laws are at the State level (HRS).
Posts: 6,214
Threads: 354
Joined: Feb 2006
You give the code, but not the Supreme Court precedence on this. Never having seen it, it would be interesting to see the actual court cases... I have a tendency to think that the cases may end up to be the ones on regulatory taking....
Question:
If this is building is JUST for the use of you & your family, WHY are you getting a permit?
If it is:
1. to have a building of value equal to permitted houses, then you are agreeing that this is also for OTHERS to purchase, and those others are utilizing the permit process as an assurance of a community norm.
2. to have utility hookup (either now or in the future). Those utilities may have set the standard that they require for the community safety.
ETA: 3. Insurance & or lender requirements, but those definitely cases where this is not a decision for just your family, and you are already wanting someone else to share your liability.
Those are just 3 of the reasons why the building permit is a COMMUNITY standard, not a personal standard. If you are only looking at a personal standard, why get a permit?
|
