Show of HandsShow of Hands

Comments: Add Comment

VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
06/07/17 1:08 pm

9-0 ruling "for the plaintiff " @PamGH Case closed.

hokiejac Decatur, GA
06/06/17 11:47 am

This is a case about the police powers of the state and the limits to those powers. It is within the state's police powers to regulate any professional industry within its borders. And part of that power is exclusivity. The state may bar a person from calling himself an "engineer" if he is not licensed by the state as required by state law. They cannot restrain him referring to his degree in engineering though. However, holding himself out as an engineer is allowable.

The basis of his $500 fine is holding himself out to be an engineer when he is not licensed as such. The facts of the case prove this charge to be a mere pretext as the gentleman was merely an interested citizen who offered calculations to show an error in the yellow light duration. He was not asking to be paid; he was petitioning his govt for redress which is protected by the constitution. The fine is vacated.

jadeburt Ann Arbor, Michigan
06/06/17 10:59 am

For the plaintiff. I wholly sign on to osouless's reasoning below.

In addition, I'd like to point out that the only reasonable argument against the plaintiff is that government has the power to regulate commerce. I reject that argument for 2 reasons: 1) this is a locality regulating commerce. Not Congress. A locality can't regulate commerce in such a way that infringes on the federal constitution's guarantee of free speech. That would literally grant the government power to do anything. If it could justify its actions by saying its regulating commerce irrespective of what other rights are being infringed. And 2) Even if it were Congress, the ability of an unlicensed engineer to do math to get himself out of a ticket does not have a substantial effect on INTERSTATE commerce. In the precedent set by US v. Lopez, the commerce clause wouldn't grant Congress power to pass such a law either.

Reply
jadeburt Ann Arbor, Michigan
06/06/17 11:00 am

Therefore, the plaintiff's claims are upheld regardless of local or national regulation of commerce.

PamGH Washington
06/06/17 10:31 am

For plaintiff

Reply
iceberg124
06/06/17 9:36 am

Against the plaintiff, this man is not a licensed engineer and he should not have been telling people he is and does not have the credentials to carry that title. You get arrested for impersonating a police officer, you even get arrested for impersonating a real estate agent.

RagingMystic covfefe
06/06/17 10:14 am

Hes not claiming to be an engineer, nor is he making any changes, he's providing his input to the city.

iceberg124
06/06/17 10:19 am

There is no way to prove that he didn't call himself an engineer or impersonate one on his emails with the board but given the articles few paragraphs dedicated to saying that he 'is' an engineer it seems very likely he referred to himself as that when speaker with the board, which is illegal.

RagingMystic covfefe
06/06/17 10:21 am

Uh theres a very easy way to prove that.

RagingMystic covfefe
06/06/17 10:22 am

And you're basing your entire ruling on "its very likely". Sounds like reasonable doubt to me.

iceberg124
06/06/17 10:25 am

It says right in the article he continuously referred to himself as an 'electrical engineer' with no license

iceberg124
06/06/17 10:25 am

Look at the explore in depth link

RagingMystic covfefe
06/06/17 10:29 am

It says the board told him he couldn't refer to himself as an engineer, and wasnt being fined for "impersonating an engineer", but for " “critiquing” the length of yellow lights and talking about his ideas with “members of the public” "

iceberg124
06/06/17 10:31 am

When you critique something and you say your title is 'engineer' you are impersonating an engineer because you are not licensed

RagingMystic covfefe
06/06/17 10:33 am

He never said his title was engineer, otherwise the board would have said that. But they didn't.

iceberg124
06/06/17 10:38 am

Read the article >but that the agency does have authority over engineering laws, and that Mats was breaking them through his “use of the title ‘electronics engineer’ and the statement ‘I’m an engineer.’”

It's illegal. You can be fined or charged for giving medical advice w. No license or disclosure. It's the same thing.

osouless Whats Next
06/06/17 9:23 am

While it is the state's right to require certain licenses and permits to preform certain services, such as bar-tending, teaching, legal consul, and hair-dressing, the plaintiff was not actually preforming any service. He was simply mathematically determining a flaw in the states street light system. Therefore the $500 fine was improperly levied and should be revoked immediately. However, don't let this decision be improperly construed as a refutation of states rights and their ability to require certain certificates/licenses to preform certain services.

Reply
MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
06/06/17 9:17 am

@Reaganist @Hokiejac @BuffaloZulu @Osouless @Zackistan @Fernando1999 @Jadeburt @MrArcher

musicotic Michigan
06/06/17 9:06 am

Judges, I urge you to rule for the plaintiff.

Also, someone else who reads /r/politics

Reply
iceberg124
06/06/17 9:30 am

No wonder you are so brainwashed music. You read the cesspool of the internet

RagingMystic covfefe
06/06/17 10:14 am

Lel, Bert calling /r/politics a "cesspool" while reading t_d

RagingMystic covfefe
06/06/17 11:01 am

The_Donald. The six year old shitbabies of reddit

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
06/06/17 8:56 am

ALL JUSTICES:

lets use this thread to keep track of our decisions.

A simple "For the Plaintiff" or "Against the Plaintiff" or "Vote to Dismiss" will suffice.

osouless Whats Next
06/06/17 9:20 am

For the plaintiff. See reasoning above.

MrJonahSmith
06/06/17 9:42 am

For the plaintiff.

MrArcher
06/06/17 10:24 am

For the plaintiff.

jadeburt Ann Arbor, Michigan
06/06/17 10:46 am

For the plaintiff. Reasoning above.

hokiejac Decatur, GA
06/06/17 11:50 am

For the plaintiff... mostly. See my reasoning above. Bottom line: vacate the fine but allow states to regulate the use of terms describing regulated professions

buffalozulu New Adventures
06/06/17 5:58 pm

I subscribe to hokiejac's reasoning

Zackisan VC Member
06/06/17 6:41 pm

For the plaintiff, I concur with Justice osouless's argument

VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
06/06/17 8:50 am

Mr. Järlström's wife received a ticket issued via a red-light camera. Mr. Järlström's went on to research how the timing of the camera worked. Mr. Järlström's sent a letter to the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying requesting an opportunity to present his research on how the too-short yellow lights were making money for the state and putting the public's safety at risk. The board cited him $500 for the crime of practicing engineering without being registered. It is our position that it is unconstitutional to prevent someone from doing math without the government's permission. Indeed, criticizing the government's engineering isn't a crime, it is a constitutional right. The First Amendment does not require you to be a licensed lawyer to write an article critical of a Supreme Court decision and you should not be required to be a licensed engineer to talk about traffic lights. For more information refer to ij.org/case/oregon-engineering-speech/