You are here: Home / Archives for Regulations

A new bully on the playground

June 23, 2011 By Leave a Comment

by Carrie Ann Sitren
Goldwater Institute

There’s a new feature at summer camp this year. But it’s not a new swimming hole or playground. It’s Big Brother looking over the shoulders of daycare centers.

Arizona’s Division of Licensing Services (DLS) has created a new program to control activities from TV time to the number of times water is offered each day. While DLS doesn’t have the authority to freely reign over private daycare centers, it has found a way to use fees to force private organizations to submit to its preferences.

Until 2010 daycare licensing fees cost $150 every three years regardless of how many children were enrolled. Last year, rates rocketed to $7,800 for the largest childcare centers. For many small centers, the new $1,000 fee proved too much to sustain. This year, the government offered some relief. Childcare centers can cut their fees in half if they agree to 10 new standards, including serving meals “family style,” meaning all kids eat from the same bowls, serve themselves as much or little of each food as they want, and are free to eat dessert without finishing their plates.

Arizona law does not permit an agency to use licensing fees for whatever Simon Says. Licensing fees must be tied directly to the cost of the regulation. In industries where health and safety concerns are obvious, like caring for children, licensing is the most popular and traditional way to regulate. In a perfect world, fees and regulation should go hand-in-hand, so that the people who are regulated pay directly for their costs. The money should pay for things like background checks, facility inspections, and investigations.

But these new daycare center license fees are clearly not tied to the cost of regulation. It costs no more to license a daycare center that serves 1% low fat milk instead of 2% milk. The agency is using fees to coerce daycare centers to follow standards that ultimately are not within the agency’s power to make. DLS should stop bullying daycare centers and stick to traditional health and safety concerns.

Carrie Ann Sitren is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Arizona Department of Health Services: Division of Licensing Services Empower Center Standards

Arizona Republic: 300 protest child-care fee hike

Filed Under: Government, Regulations, State Government

Schweikert Bill Enabling Small Companies To Access Capital Markets Approved By Committee

June 22, 2011 By 1 Comment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 22, 2011

WASHINGTON – The Financial Services Committee today approved the Small Company Capital Formation Act (H.R. 1070) introduced by Rep. David Schweikert.

The bill makes it easier for small businesses to access capital, which will permit greater investment in these companies and will allow them to grow and create new jobs.

“I am extremely pleased that the Financial Services Committee passed my Small Company Capital Formation Act. This common-sense proposal, passed with bipartisan support, reduces burdensome regulation on small business and creates more jobs. I am glad my colleagues stand with me in unwinding regulation and make our capital markets more vibrant and competitive,” said Rep. Schweikert.

The bill increases the offering threshold for companies exempted from SEC registration under Regulation A from $5 million — which was set in the early 1990s — to $50 million. Increasing the Regulation A threshold will lower the cost of raising capital for small businesses.

“Small businesses are the engine of job growth in our country,” said Chairman Spencer Bachus. “With this proposal, small businesses will be able to more efficiently raise funds that they can use to hire new employees. I commend Rep. Schweikert for offering this important bill that will help small businesses across the country create jobs.”

H.R. 1070 was approved by voice vote.

# # #

 

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Federal Government, Legislation, Press Release, Regulations, Small Business

Allen calls on federal government to reform forest management policies

June 7, 2011 By 2 Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 7, 2011
CONTACT: Mike Philipsen

(STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX) State Senator Sylvia Allen (R-5) today expressed her sadness and frustration over the devastation being caused by the rapidly-growing Wallow Fire in southern Apache and northern Greenlee Counties. Allen called on the U.S. Forest Service to reform its management policies and adopt restoration practices that will protect the forests and wildlife without harming rural communities, the economy, and the taxpayers.

“The Wallow Fire is further evidence that our current system of managing our forests is simply not working,” Allen said. “To the contrary, the federal government’s policies for protecting spotted owls and goshawks are wreaking devastation, destroying homes, and threatening lives, communities, and our economy throughout northern Arizona, and the owls and goshawks are no better protected.”

“It’s time that we return common sense to forest management. In areas where the forest had been thinned around communities, the fire has dropped and homes have been spared. Unfortunately, this thinning has only been accomplished in a few areas.”

Allen called on the Forest Service to move forward with the Four Forests Restoration Initiative, whereby the Forest Service contracts with private industry to do the mechanical thinning.

“The only way we’re going to restore our forests is to involve private industry, which will absorb the costs while responsibly thinning the forest, so we don’t have any more of these enormous fires,” said Allen. “It saves the taxpayers money, creates jobs, and protects us from these devastating wildfires.”

Allen also pointed to the economic devastation resulting from fires like the currently-burning Wallow and Horseshoe Fires and the Rodeo Chediski Fire of 2002. “Besides the millions of dollars it takes to fight these kinds of massive fires, there is another hidden cost to this beautiful region where I live. The fires kill tourism and recreation, and local businesses suffer for a long time after the fires go out.”

Allen expressed her gratitude to the firefighters and Forest Service officials who are responding to the Wallow Fire. “I want those who are fighting the fire to know that my prayers are with them for their safety, and my gratitude goes out to them for working so hard in fighting this fire.

My frustration is with bureaucrats 2000 miles away with their misguided regulations that lead to these catastrophic fires, and with the extreme environmental groups who have made millions of dollars from American taxpayers by filing lawsuits.”

###

 

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Environment, Government, Political Parties, Press Release, Regulations, State Government Tagged With: ,

Susie’s lemonade stand not welcome in Phoenix

May 19, 2011 By 8 Comments

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute

A new Verizon commercial shows little Susie working her lemonade stand when her father hands her a smart phone with a calculator in it. Susie’s eyes light up. She immediately uses the technology to network friends into a lemonade empire, complete with an office building behind her house.

That is American exceptionalism. With little burden from government, anyone with a good idea, a strong work ethic, and a willingness to serve others in a competitive environment has a chance to succeed.

But not so much in Phoenix or Mesa.

Goldwater intern Megan Teague made some phone calls. In Phoenix, you can’t do business without some sort of permit, and since there is no permit befitting a kid’s lemonade stand, it’s technically illegal to operate one. In Mesa, zoning prevents doing business in a residential area, so lemonade stands are also illegal there. In both cities, kids run stands occasionally, but if a neighbor or street vendor complains, the cities will shut them down. Scottsdale allows some liberty, treating lemonade stands like garage sales.

Phoenix is streamlining its construction permitting, an excellent move in the right direction, but Susie’s empire would nevertheless be still-born here. Permitting is not just a paperwork efficiency issue. Permitting itself can limit opportunity. While the economy recovers and permitting offices are slow, cities should scour their codes and ordinances for regulations and eliminate those that stop entrepreneurs before they can even get started.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: A New Charter for American Cities: 10 Rights to Restrain Government and Protect Freedom

East Valley Tribune: Cut red tape to restore cities’ fiscal health

Phoenix Business Journal: Phoenix program to streamline permit process

Filed Under: City Government, Economic Development, Government, Regulations

Goldwater Institute Files Lawsuit to Stop Arbitrary Censorship of Gun Ads

May 11, 2011 By 1 Comment

PHOENIX – Today, the Goldwater Institute filed a legal challenge to the removal of a business advertisement from 50 Phoenix bus shelters in October 2010, claiming the city’s rules are so vague that they allow city officials to violate business owners’ right to free speech.

The Phoenix Public Transit Department says posters for a website operated by TrainMeAz did not comply with city standards for advertising at bus shelters. But city officials cannot explain how the TrainMeAZ ads are substantially different than posters that appear on bus stops throughout the city for other businesses including jewelry stores, fast-food restaurants, and weekend gun shows, said Clint Bolick, the Goldwater Institute’s litigation director.

“Phoenix’s officials can oversee the content of advertising on city property to prevent obscene material or truly inappropriate messages,” Mr. Bolick said. “But the city cannot dismiss ads based on a bureaucratic whim. The free speech protections of the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution require the city to enforce clear and objective standards that treat advertisers in a fair and equal manner.”

The Arizona Constitution protects free expression to a greater degree than the federal Constitution – it gives every person in the state the right to “freely speak, write and publish.” But the City’s ordinance permits only commercial speech at bus stops, prohibiting all other types of advertisements. This doesn’t comply with the state’s broad speech protections. In Arizona, the government may not favor one type of speech over other types.

The TrainMeAz website was created in 2010 to connect self-defense and marksmanship trainers with potential customers. To grow the new business, the website launched a promotion campaign that included roadside billboards. It also contracted for poster locations with CBS Outdoors, a private company hired by the Phoenix transit department to manage advertising at city bus stops. A week after the bus stop ads were in place, Phoenix transit officials ordered their removal. Negotiations to restore the ads failed, as the city claimed the posters did not propose “a commercial transaction.”

“If this is left unchallenged, there’s a serious risk that bureaucrats will apply their own personal views to determine which ads are accepted or rejected, violating the First Amendment’s protection from arbitrary government censorship,” Mr. Bolick said. “A vegetarian transit official could reject ads featuring fast-food burgers, or a conservative official could reject ads for businesses associated with liberal causes.”

The Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents TrainMeAz LLC and company manager Alan Korwin in this legal case. The Goldwater Institute has requested the courts strike down the city ordinance on bus shelter advertising, so that a new version can be adopted that provides clear standards for the transit department to follow. As an alternative, the courts also could determine that TrainMeAz’s ads should not have been removed.

Read more about this and other Goldwater Institute cases to protect individual rights and uphold the Constitution at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/korwinvcotton. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

Filed Under: 2nd Amendment, Advertising, City Government, Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech, Judicial, Press Release, Regulations

Protecting small fish from a big bureaucracy

May 3, 2011 By 1 Comment

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute

I don’t know what tiny Garra Rufa fish eat in their native Asian habitats; but when they see a skin callus, they go crazy. I guess there’s no accounting for taste in the fish world. Just as there’s no accounting for reason in the world of government bureaucrats.

Cindy Vong, the owner of a Gilbert nail salon who as a girl escaped communist oppression in Vietnam, learned about the Garra Rufa fish and their penchant for providing a relaxing experience while removing rough skin with their toothless little mouths. Following the lead of entrepreneurs in Asia, Europe, and elsewhere in the U.S., Mrs. Vong added “spa fish” therapy to her salon, investing thousands of dollars in fish and equipment and creating a thoroughly hygienic process.

The business was a success, attracting customers across hundreds of miles and allowing Mrs. Vong to bring on extra staff. But this was all too much for the Arizona Board of Cosmetology, which knows nothing about spa fish therapy and therefore ordered Mrs. Vong to close the business.

Represented by the Goldwater Institute, Mrs. Vong challenged that decision, claiming that the board has no jurisdiction over fish and that its actions violated her constitutional right to earn a living. The trial court dismissed her lawsuit, holding that Mrs. Vong should have pursued relief through the cosmetology board—the very board that shut her down.

Last Friday, the Arizona Court of Appeals reinstated Mrs. Vong’s lawsuit. The cosmetology board does have jurisdiction over spa fish therapy, the appeals court ruled, but Mrs. Vong deserves her day in court to prove the board’s actions are irrational and excessive.

Have you ever wondered how it came to be that in a nation committed to opportunity and freedom of enterprise, bureaucrats can run roughshod over entrepreneurs like Cindy Vong? It would take an entire book to answer that question—specifically the one I just published, “Death Grip: Loosening the Law’s Stranglehold Over Economic Liberty.” I hope you’ll join us for a book forum on Thursday, May 12, at 11:30 a.m. to explore this important topic.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Vong v. Aune

Goldwater Institute: Policy Forum on “Death Grip: Loosening the Law’s Stranglehold Over Economic Liberty”

Arizona Daily Star: Pedicure by fish gets day in court

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Economic Development, Judicial, Regulations, State Government

Your Money is No Good on PPP Toll Roads

March 1, 2011 By 7 Comments

This is an interesting one.  On the new public private partnership tollroads popping up throughout the nation as a result of states seeing new sources of revenue, all kinds of new toll roads and pay lanes are popping up.

In this particular case, even though it is illegal to not accept legal tender Federal Reserve Notes which state on their face that the note is legal tender for all debts public and private, people are actually getting ARRESTED on a private road or privately administered lane for wanting to pay tolls with cash!

Talk about an unintended consequence of states’ intentions to enhance their revenue with these schemes! -> Law abiding citizens getting arrested, taking up law enforcement resources, in order to enforce a private corporation’s debt collection activities!

Needless to say, there are constitutional issues here and this is being challenged in Florida where this occurred.

Your Money’s No Good – On The Roads, That Is…

February 26, 2011

It says on our Fed Funny Money that “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” Except for paying tolls on government roads.   In which case, it’s not.

They won’t take your money. But they will force you to cart around an “easy pass” electronic receiver to pay your toll automatically. A transponder/receiver that identifies your car, notes its passing and sends you the bill (or debits an account). A receiver that also has the capability to track your vehicle as well as monitor its speed. They’re not – yet – using these “easy passes” to do more than collect tolls, but that doesn’t mean they won’t, especially as the financial pressures on state and local governments mount and the search for new revenue sources intensifies.

(more… click here)

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Regulations, State Budget, Transportation

Do you live on the wrong side of the power line?

December 8, 2010 By 16 Comments

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute

In choosing where to live, Arizonans generally consider school district boundaries, relative property tax rates, crime statistics, and the like. One factor that ought to figure into the decision is which utility company supplies the power.
 
Two of the biggest players, Salt River Project (SRP) and Arizona Public Service Co. (APS), are on divergent paths. Ordinarily, private companies like APS are more nimble and responsive to market forces than their public counterparts. But in Arizona, the converse is true, at least in terms of renewable energy.
 
While SRP is carefully evaluating its renewable energy policies in light of cost and technology, APS is locked into a rigid renewable energy mandate for the next 15 years in which cost is no object and technology no obstacle. Not surprising, tariffs APS charges to meet its renewable energy mandate are already one-third larger than SRP’s, and the gap is growing. The added charges run about $6 each month for APS residential customers and into the hundreds of dollars for small businesses.
 
Why the difference? APS is subject to regulation by the Arizona Corporation Commission, while SRP, a quasi-governmental agency, is not. So while SRP is free to respond to dynamic energy market forces, APS’s renewable energy decisions are subject to the political dictates of a remote agency that is highly responsive to special-interest groups ranging from environmental activists to subsidy-seeking solar companies.
 
But don’t feel too sorry for APS—every dollar of the costs associated with complying with the ACC’s renewable energy rules is passed along to consumers in the form of higher rates.
 
The Goldwater Institute is challenging the renewable energy rules on the grounds that the ACC has no legal authority to set energy policy. But until a favorable court decision or legislative action, consumers unlucky enough to be on the wrong side of the APS/SRP boundary can get used to ever-higher power bills.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission

Arizona Republic: SRP to review policy on renewables

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Energy, Government, Regulations, State Government

Economically, we must choose: Texas or California

December 7, 2010 By 13 Comments

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute

When it comes to economic policy, policymakers are increasingly looking to the two largest states in the nation as guides for what to do and what not to do. California and Texas represent nearly opposite visions for how to achieve prosperity.

Even though California is in an economic death spiral elected officials are looking for ways to tax carbon emissions, increase regulation, and they have basically refused to cut government spending. Meanwhile, Texas, with its welcoming business environment of no income tax and lighter regulation, is booming.

The differences between the two states are stark:

• The number of government employees in California has grown, but Forbes magazine notes that the state has not produced a single net new job since 1998.
• Texas has grown the number of middle-income jobs by 16 percent while California’s grew by 2 percent.
• Even film production in California has declined markedly; 82 percent of all films were produced there in 2002, now it’s only 30 percent.
• Texas now has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state.

California will find itself even more disadvantaged after the Panama Canal is widened in a couple of years. Large retailers with shipments from China have been looking for new ports since a California longshoreman’s strike left goods sitting on docks just before Christmas several years ago.

California’s situation proves that taxes and regulation matter. Even natural advantages like a beautiful climate and a coast line can be neutralized by over-reaching government. States become and stay prosperous when the private sector is free to innovate and invest. So, the key to avoiding California’s fate is to borrow from Texas’s tax and regulation playbook.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

Learn More:

Forbes: California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife?

American Legislative Exchange Council: Rich States, Poor States

The Economist: California v Texas: America’s Future

Filed Under: Economic Development, Economics, Regulations, Spending, State Budget, State Economy, State Government, Taxation

Arizona Lawmakers Have 100 Things to be Thankful For

November 23, 2010 By 1 Comment

PHOENIX – As members of Arizona’s 50th Legislature prepare for their first session in January 2011, the Goldwater Institute offers an abundance of recommendations to save money, improve education and advance freedom in our state with 100 Ideas for 100 Days.

“The answer to the riddle of Arizona’s budget deficit is getting government to focus on core functions,” said Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.

All year long, Goldwater Institute policy analysts identify and research practical solutions to problems facing Arizona. 100 Ideas for 100 Days brings these solutions together in one publication that lawmakers can keep at their desks and refer to often. The public can gauge the Legislature’s success next year by watching to see how many of these 100 Ideas become law.

Topics in 100 Ideas for 100 Days are organized by the traditional names of legislative committees. Ideas that would help to reduce excessive spending are noted with a Money $aver sign. Every suggestion in 100 Ideas can be enacted independently of the others.

The ideas mentioned include:

• No. 13. Create a system of state contributions to Education Savings Accounts for special needs and foster care students.
• No. 35. Pass a resolution calling on Congress to convene a convention for proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require approval from a majority of the states to increase the federal debt.
• No. 44. Ask voters to approve a state constitutional amendment giving the Treasurer authority to certify budgets as balanced.

Each of the 100 ideas provides a link to more information about the idea or contact information for a Goldwater Institute analyst who can provide additional details.

The Goldwater Institute has been publishing 100 Ideas for 100 Days each year since 2006. Dozens of past ideas have been introduced as bills and signed into law, including suggestions to make government more transparent, to expand school choice options, and to protect private property.

Click here to read 100 Ideas for 100 Days. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog that develops innovative, principled solutions to issues facing the states and whose work is made possible by the generosity of its supporters.

Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Constitutional Law, Economic Development, Economics, Education, Energy, Federal Budget, Government, Government Reform, Health Care, Legislation, Press Release, Property Rights, Regulations, Spending, State Budget, State Economy, State Government, States Rights, Taxation, Transportation

Arizona’s very own Barney Frank…Felecia Rotellini

October 13, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Way back before every American could tell you which house on their block was, or is, a foreclosure. Back when people believed banks were good and owning a home was the epitome’ of the American Dream…there were warnings.  Public warnings, on May 26, 2006 Senator McCain spoke out as part of an effort to prevent the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.  Barney Frank, the holder of the keys to The House, ignored it.  There were other things to do.  Frank, a liberal Dem, used lots of trick to diminish the importance of those warnings while taking loads of cashola, in one way or another, for his efforts.   

All this while in Arizona, Rotellini was doing her own Barney Frank act, ignoring a very well documented account of fraud from a very well respected source.  She was too busy building her political capital.   

She, like Barney Frank,  was focused on feathering her own nest while thousands of Arizona citizens were losing theirs.

 

 
 
Press releaseFor immediate release

ROTELLINI’S NEGLIGENCE & INACTION LEADS TO PEOPLES’ LOSS IN LIFE SAVINGS

PHOENIX - The Tom Horne for Attorney General campaign has released a video detailing Felecia Rotellini’s negligence as a state banking regulator.  She was warned in a detailed letter in 2006 that Mortgages Limited was engaged in possibly illegal financial activity.  She did nothing, and two years later, in 2008, the warnings proved accurate and Mortgages Limited went bankrupt.  Thousands of Arizonans lost a total of more than a billion dollars because Rotellini sat on her hands when she had the chance to act.  By contrast, Horne has defended Arizona taxpayers, most notably in the Horne v. Flores case in which $300 million was saved because he took action on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.  Rotellini’s record suggests that she does just the opposite.

 Click here to watch the video or go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owj2BXZEpfs.

 Click here to view the warning letter to Rotellini’s Office or go to http://www.electtomhorne.com/mortgages_ltd.pdf.

 

 
Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections, Crime and Punishment, Economics, Ethics, Government, Press Release, Regulations, State Economy, State Government, Uncategorized

Arizona Immigration Law = National ID for Arizonans

June 18, 2010 By 16 Comments

Despite protestations to the contrary from the law’s sponsor and others, this law turns the Arizona drivers license  (actually any state license) into a national id.

It’s a common misconception to believe that the national id must be a card or a chip.

National ID not a card or a chip, but is the data that the federal government has on you.  What the federal government has been attempting to do for many years, most notably under the Clinton administration, was to find a way to integrate all of the various data they have on American citizens into an easily searchable, easily sharable database and data exchange format.

SB1070 states

F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the purposes of determining eligibiltiy for any … license and for the purposes of verifying any claim of residence or domicile.

This section removes ALL restrictions from the exchange of license data between any state agency and any federal agency.  This section applies to ANY PERSON.  This section includes ANY LICENSE.  Under this section ANY state agency may exchange ANY person’s license data with ANY federal agency without any restriction whatsoever.

This problem has nothing to do with what occurs at a police stop. It removes ALL restrictions from data exchange, including a full data dump, or including full back and forth real-time queryability, between any state license database and any or ALL federal agencies, beginning July 1, including the IRS or Homeland Security.

Protestations from the bill’s sponsor have included:  “That’s not what it says.”  “That’s not what it means.”  “It’s not in there.”

Yes, Mr. Pearce, but that’s what the law SAYS word for word, in black and white, in 8th grade level English, no lawyers required.

Other  protestations such as in this post include playing word games….

The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA (REAL ID Act) in Arizona.

First, what does the REAL ID act have to do with it?   Nothing.  The REAL ID Act was a single federal program which attempted to force the state to turn over certain data to the feds.  This bill turns over the same data that the REAL ID Act mandated, but does so voluntarily by the state, having nothing to do with REAL ID, but having everything to do with national id once the federal government gets their hands on the data.  REAL ID here is completely irrelevant.

Second, what is “immigration status” relative to a citizens’ domicile?  Or how would you verify a citizen’s eligibility for a drivers license (or any license) via exchange of that citizen’s data with the federal government?  Why would you need to?  Where is the limitation to the term “immigration status” in the data exchange with the federal government in checking a citizen’s domicile information with the feds or a citizen’s eligibility for a driver’s license (or a business license, or a hunting license - ANY license, remember). Nowhere.  Why would the state need to do so relative to its citizens?  But that’s precisely what the law enables.

The county attorney’s office goes onto state:

Subsection F states four limiting “official purposes.” If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person’s information pursuant to subsections F’s official purposes

A bureaucrat accessing the person’ s information is not at question here.  Removal of all restrictions in sending law abiding citizen’s data to the federal government relevant to check the citizen’s domicile and/or eligibility for a license is.

Arizona law cannot dictate what the federal government does with law abiding citizen’s data once it is handed over to the feds.  The feds, of course, will promptly put the data into whatever database they want which accomplishes their longstanding goal to implement a national id system.

Again, national id is NOT a card. It is the unique identifiers such as your name, SSN, domicile and biometric data such as your digitial photo on file with the MVD, once turned over to the feds and put into their national id database.  Once the data is placed into the national id database, then your DL can be run against that national id database and is, VOILA, a national id.

Russell Pearce continues to protest stating that he’s against national ids and that this bill does not contain national id.

And, yet, he fails to address the matter of the data exchange of law abiding citizens’ license data with “any agency” of the federal government, including Janet Napolitano’s agency, who is dying to get her hands on this information, especially gun owners’ information.

The only time the exchange of citizens’ data has ever been addressed was in the opinion that Andrew Thomas’ office wrote, linked to above, which stated it’s not REAL ID.   So what?  REAL ID is not the only national id program.  PASS ID, BELIEVE ID, or just drivers’ license database dumps into the Homeland Security database all turn state drivers licenses into national ids…..

….but only if the state hands over the data.  Which SB1070 does, willingly, of all citizens.

Russell Pearce is quoted as saying, “If we don’t turn over all of our data to the federal government, then how will be know who is SUPPOSED to be here.”

Wait a second, Senator Pearce, I thought this bill was supposed to be about who is NOT supposed to be here.

Senator Pearce, if you’re telling the truth and are against national id, THEN FIX THE LAW and prohibit the exchange of law abiding citizens’ data with the federal government.

No patriot hands over the private data of law abiding citizens to the feds, such as you have done in SB1070.

Anyone who does betrays the hard work of conservative patriots who have been fighting national ids since before the Clinton administration and since.

Fix the law before July 1. Otherwise, welcome to the leftist globalist Clintonista agenda as implemented by the right.

Lastly, Ronald Reagan opposed national ids http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa237.html

Gun Owners of America oppose national ids because they state that once the federal government has your drivers license data, they have enough information to track gun purchases…

“Since I need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control on targeted groups — particularly under a liberal anti-gun administration. If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.” http://seclists.org/politech/2005/Feb/0016.html

Not to mention the fact that from the federal side of the fence, they plan on using the SAME SYSTEM to enable AMNESTY.   We can’t have it both ways – to use secure ids to keep illegal aliens out and at the same time use secure ids to let them in.

Fix the law, Senator Pearce.

 

Filed Under: 2nd Amendment, Legislation, Privacy, Regulations, State Government, States Rights

Tempe Tattoo Studio Lawsuit Settled

June 17, 2010 By 1 Comment

Goldwater Institute News Release

PHOENIX – After a three-year legal battle, Tom and Elizabeth Preston soon will be able to open Body Accents Tattoo and Piercing Studio in Tempe.

The Prestons have settled their lawsuit against Tempe which challenged the City’s refusal to allow the couple to open a tattoo studio near Scottsdale and Curry Roads. Both sides have agreed to dismiss their appeals of a 2009 trial court ruling. Maricopa County Judge Robert H. Oberbillig ruled the City’s revocation of the Prestons’ operating permit was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered Tempe to restore the permit. But Judge Oberbillig determined the Prestons shouldn’t receive monetary damages for more than $20,000 that they had invested in the business before Tempe revoked their permit.

“This lifts such a weight off of our shoulders,” Elizabeth Preston said. “Clearly, we lost money because we couldn’t open the studio three years ago. Now, we can do something that we are passionate about and will allow us to recover our losses in a business that continues to grow.”

“This little studio will be a monument to the triumph of economic freedom,” said Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, which represented the Prestons. “No business owner should have to endure what the Prestons went through. After the trial court precedent, we hope no one will have to do so again.”

This case protects the fundamental right of anyone to pursue a livelihood and operate a legal business without a local government shutting it down because of personal, negative feelings not based in fact or the law, Mr. Bolick said.
 
The Prestons have owned Virtual Reality, a tattoo studio in Mesa, for 20 years with no complaints filed against them. In 2007, the City of Tempe issued a permit for their new studio, Body Accents. But the City Council rescinded that permit after substantial investment by the Prestons based on the “perception” that the studio would harm the neighborhood.

The Prestons received their Tempe operating permit today and hope to open the Body Accents studio in early August. Mr. Bolick plans to fulfill a vow to get “inked” with his first tattoo when the studio opens.

Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is a research and litigation organization whose work is made possible by the generosity of its supporters.

Filed Under: City Government, Constitutional Law, Judicial, Press Release, Property Rights, Regulations

Federalism doesn’t include blocking open trade among states

May 25, 2010 By 7 Comments

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
 
As our nation’s capital continues to expand its power at an alarming rate, many conservatives (including me) are seeking shelter in the power of the states to protect the liberty of their citizens, on issues ranging from health insurance to the right of a secret ballot in deciding whether to form unions.

The nationwide call for state autonomy has grown so passionate that some are attempting to hijack it for wicked purposes.

H.R. 5034, sponsored by Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, invokes the language of states’ rights to advance one of the few powers clearly denied the states in the original Constitution: economic protectionism. This bill would give states the power to regulate interstate alcohol shipments, even in a discriminatory manner if there is a “justification” for doing so.

The law essentially would overturn Grandholm v. Heald, a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that I argued, in which the Court struck down discriminatory barriers that blocked wine shipments to consumers across state lines. The regulations benefited liquor wholesalers, who want to control every drop of alcohol and charge hefty middleman fees, while hurting wine consumers who want to buy directly from a vineyard in another state. With the advent of the Internet, this battle plays out every day over products ranging from cars to contact lenses, as middlemen seek to protect their delivery monopolies.

The Commerce Clause was intended to end protectionist trade barriers by the states. Over time, Congress has abused its power under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that have little or nothing to do with interstate commerce. We must curb the abuses without destroying the critical purpose of the Commerce Clause: to ensure an open national market.

True federalism gives states the power to expand liberty, not to diminish it. Regulation of interstate commerce is a power our Constitution’s framers thought the states could not be trusted to exercise fairly – and they were right.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Government, Legislation, Regulations, States Rights

Arizona Corporation Commission Exceeds Constitutional Limits

May 18, 2010 By 2 Comments

Goldwater Institute study recommends court or legislative intervention to restrain ACC’s appetite

PHOENIX – The Arizona Corporation Commission has over-stepped its constitutional boundaries by making rules and regulations in areas our state founders never intended it to control, according to a new report from the Goldwater Institute.

The study, “Rediscovering the ACC’s Roots: Returning to the Original Purpose of the Arizona Corporation Commission,” shows Arizona’s founders deliberately created the Corporation Commission as an agency with limited and defined powers. The Commission was created to protect residents from fraudulent investments and price-gouging by electric and water companies. But instead of keeping utility rates low, the ACC now is forcing utilities to create electricity from certain types of sources which are more expensive, says study author Benjamin Barr, a senior fellow with the Goldwater Institute and CEO of Government Watch.

“The ACC has usurped the Legislature’s role to set energy policy and it will cost consumers $2.4 billion over the next 15 years,” said Nick Dranias, director of constitutional policy at the Goldwater Institute.

The report reviews records from the 1910 Constitutional Convention and finds that delegates specifically rejected attempts to create an agency with sweeping authority over all incorporated businesses. Instead, the constitution was written to limit the power of Corporation Commission so that it only regulated in-state railroads, financial businesses and certain utilities. That power over utilities was further limited to establishing reasonable payment rates for customers.

Mr. Barr recommends that Arizona courts recognize the intended purpose of the Corporation Commission and require the agency to operate within the limits in the state constitution. The Goldwater Institute is challenging in court the Commission’s legal authority to require the use of renewable energy, saying the mandate violates the separation of powers and other constitutional provisions.

The Arizona Legislature doesn’t have to wait for the courts, however. The report recommends that the Legislature reassert its authority by conducting an audit of the Corporation Commission. The audit would review the Commission’s various divisions and actions to determine if they are within the ACC’s constitutional boundaries. Depending on the audit’s findings, the Legislature could reshape the Corporation Commission or ask voters to assign its duties to other state agencies and shut it down entirely. Arizona is one of only six states that still has a utility regulator that operates outside of the traditional branches of government.

Click here to read “Rediscovering the ACC’s Roots: Returning to the Original Purpose of the Arizona Corporation Commission.”

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty. Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Energy, Press Release, Regulations, State Government

Right’s Fervor to Enforce Immigration Law Hijacked to Serve Leftist Agenda

May 11, 2010 By 24 Comments

The left has wanted Americans to register with the federal government and obtain a national id card ever since Franklin Roosevelt tried (and failed initially, until he stacked the court in 1937) to get the Supreme Court to rule that the Social Security system was constitutional.

Ever since then the left has been pushing the idea of registering Americans particularly in order that the federal government can dictate who can work.

In the 1990s it was the Clinton Goals 2000 program that resurrected the concept which conservatives vehemently opposed and prevailed, building upon Reagan’s vehement opposition to national ids in the 1980s.

However, today, national id has been resurrected both on the left and on the right.  On the right, it is being touted as the only way to tell who is here legally and who is not.  However, the actual animus behind the proposals being put forward by the right as the “solution” to the illegal immigrant problem comes directly from the left.

According to beatthechip.org

Legislators talked into surrendering privacy for security in the past by signing onto the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act (2005) seem content to move another form of national identity forward. The mandate would require all citizens to provide their biometrics [fingerprints, iris scans, DNA] on an ID card to work in America. This national ID initiative is the latest on the stack of many attempts to legislate the market for identity in America.

Interestingly in the 2000s, it was the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (read: amnesty) supporters such as John McCain, Jon Kyl and Senator Bennett (now defeated), who first put forward the concept of law-abiding Americans needing to get prior permission and prior clearance from the federal government before getting a job via Homeland Security’s e-Verify system.

Why would the left be touting something the right believes in so strongly as a solution to the illegal immigrant problem?

That’s the wrong question.  The right question is:  Why would the RIGHT be touting something the left believes in so strongly as being the solution to the illegal immigrant problem?

First of all e-Verify is the implementation of Hillary Clinton’s proposal from the early nineties: school-to-work, Goals 2000, federal government tracking of students through school and federal government targetting of who should be able to work and where they should work.

Secondly, e-Verify was first touted by the Council on Foreign Relations (the very same people who brought you the North American Union) as the system to use for amnesty, i.e. for employers to use to see who is employment eligible and who is not.  I.e. once amnesty passes, all of those who registered for amnesty would – POOF – overnight gain employment eligibility as verified via the e-Verify system.

At some point along the line since the early 2000s, either the right has been duped into adopting this federal top-down driven verification system as a solution, or they knowingly did so because, despite protestations to the contrary, they actually support the concept of a national id.

Further, beatthechip.org reports:

Over 2 years ago, the release of national ID card regulations in drivers licenses challenged advocates in new and unusual ways. Regulations had a tangible reach into State’s coffers as an unfunded mandate due to national law, the Real ID Act. The law became controversial through its association with the border fence, immigration, surveillance and tracking technologies, and its ability to deny citizens the ability to bank, to travel or enter federal buildings based on identity prerequisites….all 50 states are still being held to benchmark compliance deadlines. Many of these States will receive grant monies towards standardizing drivers licenses after appropriations were passed for Homeland Security operations.

So, I think as conservatives we really need to ask ourselves, why were our predecessors in our movement so vehemently opposed to national ids or Hillary Clinton’s school-to-work employment eligibility idea?

Do you know?  If you don’t, find out, or else you’ll find yourself in a position where you are betraying the hard work and dilligence of the hard-core conservative, limited government patriots who came before you.

 

Filed Under: Illegal Aliens, Privacy, Regulations, State Government, States Rights

New state law requires cities and counties to challenge intrusive federal rules

May 5, 2010 By 5 Comments

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Last week, Governor Jan Brewer signed into law Senate Bill 1398, which mandates that local governments enforce their “coordination rights” against federal agencies. This new law enlists Arizona cities, counties and special districts in the fight against an overreaching federal government.

SB1398 leverages the fact that federal agencies are required by many federal laws to “coordinate” with local governments to ensure that new federal regulations will be enforced consistently with existing local laws. In other states, local governments have successfully used their coordination rights to block the introduction of wild horses into public and private lands, as well as to prevent new listings of endangered species. Despite these successes, most local governments simply do not exercise their coordination rights, perhaps for fear of upsetting federal agencies.

Now, whenever a new federal regulation clashes with a less restrictive local law, plan or policy, SB1398 requires Arizona cities, counties and special districts to demand that the responsible federal agency sit down at a bargaining table and make every reasonable effort to modify the federal regulation to become consistent with local priorities. If local governments ignore this obligation, ordinary citizens will have the power to compel their local elected officials to justify their inaction at a public hearing, guaranteeing local accountability.

But the effort to restore federalism does not end with the passage of SB1398. To stake out an initial bargaining position that will blunt one-size-fits-all federal regulations, local governments in Arizona need to start developing freedom-friendly land use policies before the need for coordination arises.  Fortunately, the Goldwater Institute policy report “A New Charter for American Cities” shows how that can be done.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Filed Under: City Government, County Government, Government, Legislation, Regulations, State Government, States Rights
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »