strict scrutiny

Arizona
the state says i have no legal rights in court or to start a court action if i make a contract
in construction with out being a licensed contractor
I believe that the state statues in licensing on contractors is
constructed, unconstitutionaly and applied unconstitutionaly
my ? is if the state make a statue that say i have no legal right to enforce a contract in court is there a possiable (strict scrutiny)
view from the courts may be applied I've readed that if a fundamental right (access to courts being one) is forbided by a state that the court may take a strict scrutiny look at the statues

capzen said:

Arizona
the state says i have no legal rights in court or to start a court action if i make a contract
in construction with out being a licensed contractor
I believe that the state statues in licensing on contractors is
constructed, unconstitutionaly and applied unconstitutionaly
my ? is if the state make a statue that say i have no legal right to enforce a contract in court is there a possiable (strict scrutiny)
view from the courts may be applied I've readed that if a fundamental right (access to courts being one) is forbided by a state that the court may take a strict scrutiny look at the statues

Click to expand...

My response:

The Arizona statute states that one may not sue in court to recover compensation for any act or contract that requires a contractor's license, unless one alleges and proves he or she was duly licensed at all times during the performance.

The purposes of the licensing law are to protect the public from incompetence and dishonesty in those who provide building and construction services and to provide minimal assurance that all persons offering such services have the requisite skill and character, understand applicable local laws and codes, and know the rudiments of administering a contracting business.

The statutory disallowance of claims for payment by unlicensed subcontractors is intended to deter such persons from offering their services or accepting solicitations of their work. Such contracts are considered illegal, i.e., malum prohibitum, as opposed to malum in se. Thus, an unlicensed contractor cannot recover either for the agreed contract price or for the reasonable value of labor and materials. Actions for breach of implied contract, fraud, on the contract or in quasi-contract, and actions to enforce a mechanic's or vendor's lien are all prohibited by this statute.

In summary, your exclusion from collecting anything over $750.00 is to discourage you, and to protect the "public welfare."

IAAL

I kind of get the drift of why the state is doing this, but the ? is if in fact i can prove the statue is unconstitutional and i can prove that the state has taken away my right to go to court, could this be, or would this be grounds for a strict scrutiny review by the courts. the fact that the state has taken my ablity to have access to courts? thanks

Forget it. The test is whether the law is rationally related to a reasonable government purpose. See all those weasel words? No way will you squirm out from under them based on constitutional arguments.

My further response:

. . . and besides, have you ever looked at some of those shacks and ramshakled outhouses in the South. That's right, they were all built by unlicensed contractors. Leaning over, and looking like they're ready to fall down - - somebody has to look out for the consumer !

IAAL

rationally related

Abezon the test of rationally related to a reasonable purpose
you hit the nail on the head But if in fact the statues provide no protection. what is your idea on that ? in making law there are court cases saying 1st there must be a reason for the law
2nd the statue must be able to reach it goals that would be to protect if the state allowed doctors or lawyers to test and pass then let them hire 500 lay person to do their doctoring or lawyering is this reasonable protection if the state let me take the test for a drivers licenses then said your the head of the house hold or qualifing party for your entire family so they don't have to take the test would this be real protection
The notion that the licensed party or tested party is then the responable party so after a injury or damage has occured is not what licensing in police powers is for. testing and licensing is to prevent the injury or damages from happening not to find the responable party 3nd just for my own info do youthink that a state can make or produce unconstitutional statues

your opinon on this please steve