承办人的分成:挑战棺材许可的理性基础

D. Smith, N. Trudeau
{"title":"承办人的分成:挑战棺材许可的理性基础","authors":"D. Smith, N. Trudeau","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2781971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Occupational licensing laws, once only applied to a narrow range of professional occupations, were extended to the funeral industry in the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries under the justification that they create professional standards that protect the deceased, their loved ones, and the general public. Funeral licensing now covers embalmers, funeral directors, and even casket sellers. Rather than protecting the public, licensing in the funeral industry in practice has often codified and protected the very abuses it was alleged to protect against by erecting barriers to entry and reducing competition. Casket licensure has been upheld in some U.S. courts under the rational basis test on the grounds that it promotes public health, protects consumers from fraud, and even that protectionism of an industry is a legitimate function of government. We challenge the rational basis for casket licensure by examining the Oklahoma’s 10th Circuit Court’s Powers v. Harris case, which used the rational basis test to uphold casket licensure restrictions on the online sale of caskets.","PeriodicalId":398979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Private Enterprise","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Undertaker's Cut: Challenging the Rational Basis for Casket Licensing\",\"authors\":\"D. Smith, N. Trudeau\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2781971\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Occupational licensing laws, once only applied to a narrow range of professional occupations, were extended to the funeral industry in the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries under the justification that they create professional standards that protect the deceased, their loved ones, and the general public. Funeral licensing now covers embalmers, funeral directors, and even casket sellers. Rather than protecting the public, licensing in the funeral industry in practice has often codified and protected the very abuses it was alleged to protect against by erecting barriers to entry and reducing competition. Casket licensure has been upheld in some U.S. courts under the rational basis test on the grounds that it promotes public health, protects consumers from fraud, and even that protectionism of an industry is a legitimate function of government. We challenge the rational basis for casket licensure by examining the Oklahoma’s 10th Circuit Court’s Powers v. Harris case, which used the rational basis test to uphold casket licensure restrictions on the online sale of caskets.\",\"PeriodicalId\":398979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Private Enterprise\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Private Enterprise\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2781971\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Private Enterprise","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2781971","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

职业许可法,曾经只适用于一小部分专业职业,在19世纪和20世纪被扩展到美国的殡葬业,理由是他们创造了保护死者、他们的亲人和公众的专业标准。殡葬执照现在涵盖了防腐师、殡葬承办人,甚至是棺材销售商。而不是保护公众,在实践中,殡葬业的许可往往是编纂和保护了滥用,它被指控通过设置进入壁垒和减少竞争来防止滥用。一些美国法院在理性基础测试下支持棺材许可,理由是它促进了公众健康,保护消费者免受欺诈,甚至行业保护主义是政府的合法职能。我们通过审查俄克拉何马州第十巡回法院的权力诉哈里斯案来挑战棺材许可的理性基础,该案件使用理性基础测试来支持对在线销售棺材的棺材许可限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Undertaker's Cut: Challenging the Rational Basis for Casket Licensing
Occupational licensing laws, once only applied to a narrow range of professional occupations, were extended to the funeral industry in the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries under the justification that they create professional standards that protect the deceased, their loved ones, and the general public. Funeral licensing now covers embalmers, funeral directors, and even casket sellers. Rather than protecting the public, licensing in the funeral industry in practice has often codified and protected the very abuses it was alleged to protect against by erecting barriers to entry and reducing competition. Casket licensure has been upheld in some U.S. courts under the rational basis test on the grounds that it promotes public health, protects consumers from fraud, and even that protectionism of an industry is a legitimate function of government. We challenge the rational basis for casket licensure by examining the Oklahoma’s 10th Circuit Court’s Powers v. Harris case, which used the rational basis test to uphold casket licensure restrictions on the online sale of caskets.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Durability of Legislative Benefits and the Role of the Executive Branch's Settlement Authority Blockchains: Less Government, More Market The Undertaker's Cut: Challenging the Rational Basis for Casket Licensing Climate Change, the Knowledge Problem and the Good Life Bruno Leoni's Legacy and Continued Relevance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1