• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stupid Over-Regulation in Oregon

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This would be funny if it were not so sadly reminiscent of 1984 and Brave New World. One can only hope the author is right and these over-zealous regulators will be publicly slapped down.

Oregon is suing engineers for . . . speaking up about engineering?


A man is fined $500 for sharing his opinion, or what the state calls practicing engineering without a license.






Beginning this week, Washington hopes that infrastructure, which is a product of civil engineering, will be much discussed. But if you find yourself in Oregon, keep your opinions to yourself, lest you get fined $500 for practicing engineering without a license. This happened to Mats Jarlstrom as a result of events that would be comic if they were not symptoms of something sinister.
Jarlstrom’s troubles began when his wife got a $150 red-light-camera ticket. He became interested in the timing of traffic lights and decided there was something wrong with the formula used in Oregon and elsewhere to time how long traffic lights stay yellow as they transition from green to red. He began thinking, Googling, corresponding and — here he made his big mistake — talking about this subject. He has ignored repeated demands by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying that he pipe down. So the board considers him to be, like Jesse James, Al Capone and John Dillinger, a dangerous recidivist.
Not that it should matter, but Jarlstrom actually is an engineer. He has a degree in electrical engineering, served in a technical capacity in the Swedish air force and worked for Sweden’s Luxor Electronics before immigrating to the United States in 1992. He is, however, not licensed by Oregon to “practice engineering” — design skyscrapers, bridges, etc. — so, according to the board, he should not be allowed to talk about engineering or even call himself an engineer. Only those the board licenses are admitted to the clerisy uniquely entitled to publicly discuss engineering. . . .
 
This thread has more to do with constitutional law than it does about over regulation.

Based upon the fact-pattern described above, the authority to fine someone for "speaking engineering" is unconstitutionally vague. A state may not bar a person from speaking, under the First Amendment. A state has the right to decide that a person without an engineering license cannot accept a fee for services for practicing engineering.

The law/rule is unconstitutionally vague, under the Fourteenth Amendment, because it is open-ended without boundaries and therefore leads to arbitrary prosecutions and lack of due process.
 
This thread has more to do with constitutional law than it does about over regulation.

Based upon the fact-pattern described above, the authority to fine someone for "speaking engineering" is unconstitutionally vague. A state may not bar a person from speaking, under the First Amendment. A state has the right to decide that a person without an engineering license cannot accept a fee for services for practicing engineering.

The law/rule is unconstitutionally vague, under the Fourteenth Amendment, because it is open-ended without boundaries and therefore leads to arbitrary prosecutions and lack of due process.

The individual in this case is an engineer.
 
The individual in this case is an engineer.

Not unless the state says so, apparently. These days you can't make a cup of coffee and officially call it coffee unless you have the proper coffee certification. This whole certification frenzy is an attempt to make exclusive domains out of ordinary professions.
 
According to the article, he wasn't licensed in the state.

I don't get it. Are you saying the state shouldn't license engineers?

He was fined for talking about an engineering topic. The First Amendment doesn't require a license. To claim otherwise is definitely over-regulation.
 
Last edited:
I presume that since your thread refers to over regulation, that is an admission that at least some regulation is in fact necessary and a good thing?

Most such licensing is just a way to restrict entry into a profession for the benefit of those already in.
 
Most such licensing is just a way to restrict entry into a profession for the benefit of those already in.

Yes, to insure that the people in the field actually know what the **** they are talking about and don't give others within the profession a horrible name. You really want some random idiot who has no idea what they're talking about going around building bridges and other structures only to have them crumble a month later after the guy skipped the state?

If he's an engineer, and he lives in Oregon why doesn't he just go get himself a license and prove he knows his ****? For anybody who truly takes their profession seriously it's generally a pretty small price to pay, and once you're in you don't have to worry about some yahoo who has no idea what he's doing undercutting you or making your whole profession look bad.

Sometimes a little barrier to entry is a good thing it ensures people are truly dedicated to something before they sign up. Imagine how many patents would be filed by random assholes who have no idea how to even bring their invention to market if a patent was free to apply for? Look at how many frivolous lawsuits get filed when lawyers say "they don't get paid until you win your case."
 
Yes, to insure that the people in the field actually know what the **** they are talking about and don't give others within the profession a horrible name. You really want some random idiot who has no idea what they're talking about going around building bridges and other structures only to have them crumble a month later after the guy skipped the state?
None of that has to do with the topic at hand: the person in question was talking about engineering. Not building bridges, building, or bodegas. He wasn't even acting as a consultant.
 
I don't see any legitimate state role beyond authenticating their claimed educational credentials.

And in keeping with all of that, unless you're a citizen of Oregon, none ya, right? Local control?
 
When I graduated High School and was looking into a degree in Engineering, I learned a fun little fact about getting an Engineering cert. in Oregon. There's a college in Oregon call Oregon Institute of Technology. At the time, it was pretty much the "red-headed stepchild" of Oregon colleges, but it was cheap. You could go to OIT for four years and complete your education in a number of Engineering fields, but the State of Oregon would not recognize that education as being sufficient for certification in Oregon. However, California would and if you were certified in California, then Oregon would automatically certify you. So the recommendation was to go to OIT, get certified in California and then come back to Oregon and get certified here. The process for certification in Oregon has been screwed up for a long time....
 
Yes, to insure that the people in the field actually know what the **** they are talking about and don't give others within the profession a horrible name. You really want some random idiot who has no idea what they're talking about going around building bridges and other structures only to have them crumble a month later after the guy skipped the state?

If he's an engineer, and he lives in Oregon why doesn't he just go get himself a license and prove he knows his ****? For anybody who truly takes their profession seriously it's generally a pretty small price to pay, and once you're in you don't have to worry about some yahoo who has no idea what he's doing undercutting you or making your whole profession look bad.

Sometimes a little barrier to entry is a good thing it ensures people are truly dedicated to something before they sign up. Imagine how many patents would be filed by random assholes who have no idea how to even bring their invention to market if a patent was free to apply for? Look at how many frivolous lawsuits get filed when lawyers say "they don't get paid until you win your case."

Why in the world should he need a license to comment on a public issue? And did you even read the requirements to be licensed as an engineer in Oregon? Quite a lot of PITA.

As for the rest, I don't see why valid educational credentials should not be sufficient.
 
So a doctor from another country can come here and practice medicine without state certification?

He can certainly come here and discuss a public issue regarding medicine. The engineer in the OP article is doing nothing more than public discussion.
 
So a doctor from another country can come here and practice medicine without state certification?

Probably not, but you should be aware that Kermit Gosnell was licensed by the state of Pennsylvania to practice medicine. Keep that in mind when you're in the waiting room gazing at your physician's state license and getting all warm and fuzzy.
 
From the OP article:

. . . The board has tried to bully others, too. It investigated and warned a political candidate about calling himself an engineer without being licensed by the board. (He has Cornell University and MIT degrees in environmental and civil engineering, and membership in the American Society of Civil Engineers.) For the same reason, the board is in its 12th month investigating a gubernatorial candidate who said “I’m an engineer” in a political ad. (He has a mechanical engineering degree from Purdue University and was an engineer at Ford and Boeing.)

The Oregon board has until June 14 to answer the court complaint filed on Jarlstrom’s behalf by the Institute for Justice, the nation’s liberty law firm that a few years ago stopped North Carolina’s Board of Dietetics/Nutrition from silencing a blogger who dispensed his opinions about various diets. Oregon’s board will probably receive a judicial spanking for suppressing Jarlstrom’s right to speak and, were he to try to earn income from his work on traffic lights, his freedom of occupational speech.
William Mellor and Dick M. Carpenter II, the Institute for Justice’s founding general counsel and director of strategic research, respectively, have recently published a book, “Bottleneckers,” about people like the officious nuisances on the Oregon board. The book defines a bottlenecker as “a person who advocates for the creation or perpetuation of government regulation, particularly an occupational license, to restrict entry into his or her occupation, thereby accruing an economic advantage without providing a benefit to consumers.”. . .
 
He can certainly come here and discuss a public issue regarding medicine. The engineer in the OP article is doing nothing more than public discussion.

I wasn't aware the State of Oregon regulates this website, isn't quite the same thing... :peace
 
Probably not, but you should be aware that Kermit Gosnell was licensed by the state of Pennsylvania to practice medicine. Keep that in mind when you're in the waiting room gazing at your physician's state license and getting all warm and fuzzy.

Ahhh so if a system isn't fool proof we don't need one??? But do point to where I said being certified is all I want in a doctor??? :peace
 
Back
Top Bottom