Texas Unconstitutionally Attempts To Nullify Federal Law On Incandescent Light Bulbs

[04SCTLS]

Texas Unconstitutionally Attempts To Nullify Federal Law On Incandescent Light Bulbs

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/te...lify-federal-law-on-incandescent-light-bulbs/

For some reason, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which includes a phase out of incandescent light bulbs over a seven year period ending in 2014, has become a focus of conservative ire over the past few years. Michele Bachmann made a big deal earlier this year when she introduced a bill to repeal the light bulb ban. Now, the State of Texas, whose Governor may soon be a candidate for President, has passed a law that effectively purports to nullify the Federal law:

Want to keep buying traditional incandescent light bulbs and avoid the federally mandated phase-out? Consider moving to Texas.
Texans can keep buying traditional incandescent light bulbs, under a bill allowed to become law this week by Gov. Rick Perry. It was authored by State Rep. George Lavender of Texarkana.
Lavender and supporters said the bill protects individual freedom against an unwarranted expansion of government authority.

Environmentalists and editorials from some mainstream media outlets such as the Austin Ameican-Statesman bewailed the bill because it undercuts the goal of increased energy efficiency.
The bill, HB 2510, states that it avoids the federal phase-out specifying that traditional incandescent bulbs are legal to sell in Texas as long as they are manufactured in that state. That means the bulbs are not part of interstate commerce, removing the rationale for their regulation under the U.S. Constitution, according to the bill.
​

Of course, the law runs afoul of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Raich, where the Supreme Court held that medical marijuana that was grown and sold in California under the states medical marijuana law was still subject to Federal laws dealing with illegal drugs. In that case, Justice Antonin Scalia authored a concurrence that lays out just how broad the Commerce Clause power extends:

The authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
(…)
Our cases show that the regulation of intrastate activities may be necessary to and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce in two general circumstances. Most directly, the commerce power permits Congress not only to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants. See NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 36—37 (1937). That is why the Court has repeatedly sustained congressional legislation on the ground that the regulated activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Hodel, supra, at 281 (surface coal mining); Katzenbach, supra, at 300 (discrimination by restaurants); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 258 (1964) (discrimination by hotels); Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219, 237 (1948) (intrastate price-fixing); Board of Trade of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1, 40 (1923) (activities of a local grain exchange); Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495, 517, 524—525 (1922) (intrastate transactions at stockyard). Lopez and Morrison recognized the expansive scope of Congress’s authority in this regard: “[T]he pattern is clear. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.” Lopez, supra, at 560; Morrison, supra, at 610 (same).
(…)
The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted abovesuggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.
​

In addition to Gonzalez, there’s also the Supreme Court’s decision in Wickard v. Filburn, where the Court ruled that wheat grown by a farmer for his own use which never actually entered the stream of commerce was still subject to federal regulation under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. So, the fact that the light bulbs might be manufactured and sold only in Texas is irrelevant, Congress still has the power to regulate them.
More importantly, as James Madison acknowledged as far back as 1800 during the crisis over the Alien and Sedition Acts, there is no Constitutional authority granted to the states that would allow them to nullify a Federal law:

Nor can the declarations of either [the citizens or the legislature of Virginia], whether affirming or denying the constitutionality of measures of the Federal Government, or whether made before or after judicial decisions thereon, be deemed, in any point of view, an assumption of the office of the judge. The declarations, in such cases, are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with any other effect than what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force. The former may lead to a change in the legislative expression of the general will; possibly to a change in the opinion of the judiciary; the latter enforces the general will, whilst that will and that opinion continue unchanged.
And if there be no impropriety in declaring the unconstitutionality of proceedings in the Federal Government, where can be the impropriety of communicating the declaration to other states, and inviting their concurrence in a like declaration? What is allowable for one, must be allowable for all; and a free communication among the states, where the Constitution imposes no restraint, is as allowable among the state governments as among other public bodies or private citizens. This consideration derives a weight, that cannot be denied to it, from the relation of the state legislatures to the federal legislature, as the immediate constituents of one of its branches. . . .
​

John Kelso, a columnist for the Austin-American Statesman isn’t very impressed by his home state’s latest action:

Apparently, word on how we’re losing our state’s rights over a light bulb hasn’t made it all across the Capitol. Julie Fields of the State Preservation Board reports, the Capitol “started eliminating incandescent lamps approximately eight years ago and replacing them with compact fluorescents.”She says the board estimates 98 percent of the Capitol’s lamps are either compact fluorescents or high-intensity-discharge lamps.
But the House and Senate seem dead set on stepping back in time anyway.
Remember those gigantic cellphones we used to carry around in the old days, instead of these little units with pictures on them that we use today? If the Legislature wants to stay out of touch, how about a bill backing those old phones that were about the size of a tasseled loafer?
Only in Texas could people get worked up about using a certain light bulb because the other bulb is too liberal. But I’ll bet there are people out there who don’t use the new fluorescents because they think members of their bridge club will call them commies.
Maybe what the Legislature ought to do to send a message is get a great big incandescent light bulb and screw it into the Goddess of Liberty’s head on top of the Capitol.
​

Well, it would be about as useful as the idiotic law they just passed, which you can expect to be tossed out by a Federal Judge in the near future.

________________________________________________________________

I use the warm color efficiency bulbs and don't have a problem with them.
If they can bring down the cost of LEDs and make them dimmable that would be the next step in energy efficiency.
As to the containing of mercury in the twisters they're just improved small fluorescent type bulbs that have been around as tubes since the 50's and have only recently been required to be recycled instead of just being thrown into the garbage and landfills.

I also ordered a 24 pack of Heim Electric 100 watt "Decade" branded incandescent lightbulbs that are rated for 20,000 hours and cost about 1.50 each.
That should last me forever.
The efficiency bulbs even the dimmable ones don't dim down well and just cut out whereas the incandescents work much better with the lights I want to be able to dim.

 

[shagdrum]

Unconstitutionally?!

That's funny.

It seems the author of the article doesn't understand the Constitution.

I recommend studying the work of Tom Woods concerning the idea of nullification.

Texas' actions are only "unconstitutional" to those who either don't understand the Constitution or are uninterested in adhering to what it says...

 

[foxpaws]

Texas' actions are only "unconstitutional" to those who either don't understand the Constitution or are uninterested in adhering to what it says...

So, someone like say, Justice Antonin Scalia?

 

[04SCTLS]

So, someone like say, Justice Antonin Scalia?

Justice Antonin Scalia authored a concurrence that lays out just how broad the Commerce Clause power extends:

The authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

Our cases show that the regulation of intrastate activities may be necessary to and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce
​

Beauty (the Constitution) is in the eye of the beholder Shag.

Scalia is good at talking out of both sides of his mouth (his balance sheet) when it suits
him.

 

[04SCTLS]

Unconstitutionally?!

That's funny.

It seems the author of the article doesn't understand the Constitution.

I recommend studying the work of Tom Woods concerning the idea of nullification.

Texas' actions are only "unconstitutional" to those who either don't understand the Constitution or are uninterested in adhering to what it says...

What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”
In other words, the standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place

In Pursuance Thereof is an opinion and not a fact.
It is an opinion whether a law is pursuing the intent of the constitution.
It's the United States of America and we all consider ourselves as Americans.
The differences between the peoples of the states are superficial and charming like accent and dialect.
The interstate highway system and jet travel (350,000 people are in the air every day in the US) have homogenized the country and now the internet, smart phones and social media are furthering that.
I don't see people getting all patriotic and weepy eyed about their home states
the way they do about the Stars and Stripes and the Star Spangled Banner.

 

[shagdrum]

So, someone like say, Justice Antonin Scalia?

The Left loves to cherry pick Scalia and take him out of context for their own ends. Besides, Scalia didn't say anything about Texas' law.

Care to actually confront the issue of nullification or are you content to simply agitate?

Here is a brief synopsis of the argument for it:

1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of 13 states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

2) In the American system no government is sovereign. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.​

Do you have anything to say about that argument or are you simply going to distract from it?

 

[shagdrum]

In Pursuance Thereof is an opinion and not a fact.
It is an opinion whether a law is pursuing the intent of the constitution.

If that is your argument, it equally applied to the argument you cited in the initial post as well; it is simply opinion.

The difference is, one view is honestly and logically backed up by the facts, taken in context, from the founding of the nation and appears consistent with the views of the framers. The other argument is simply dismissive of the idea of nullification.

It is interesting to look at the source your author cites for his Madison quote; a blog called the Volokh Conspiracy which cites the Madison quote the author uses (and is worth reading in it's own right). Interestingly, Woods cites a different part of the same document in defense of his case for nullification:

It’s worth recalling important passages from James Madison’s famous Report of 1800 in light of the many uninformed criticisms of nullification (e.g., “Why, the courts are our infallible judges!”)

“The resolution of the General Assembly [the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

“However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”​

The “parties to the constitutional compact” being, of course, the peoples of the states.​

While there may be some disagreement around the margins about what is and is not "In Pursuance Thereof", there really is no disagreement on certain, big power grabs of the Federal government among those truly interested in the Rule of Law (all others being useful idiots and would-be tyrants). It is only in those extreme instances of clear disregard for Constitutional authority and Constitutional ends that nullification is even looked at.

What Constitutional end is the light bulb ban serving?

The issue has NOTHING to do with the end of "interstate commerce". The commerce clause is simply a cheap justification for the authority to legislate in that area; a means to an end.

Same thing for Obamacare.

What Constitutional end does Obamacare serve?

The answer to both those questions is "none".

The Supremacy clause in the constitution reads,

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”​

Only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution (or Constitutional ends) are the "supreme law of the land".

In other words, the CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land; not legislation that subverts and maligns the Constitution toward arbitrary ends. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to avoid exercises of arbitrary power.

To view any clause in the Constitution as authorizing unchecked, arbitrary power is absurd. It only empowers would-be tyrants like Nancy Pelosi who mock inquires for a Constitutional justification for their actions.

YouTube - ‪Pelosi Scoffs When Asked Where Constitution Authorizes Ordering Americans To Buy Health Insurance‬‏

 

[fossten]

That Thomas Edison...what an imbecile. I mean, really, what the hell was he thinking. Light bulbs without mercury in them are sooooo last century.

 

[04SCTLS]

If that is your argument, it equally applied to the argument you cited in the initial post as well; it is simply opinion.

The difference is, one view is honestly and logically backed up by the facts, taken in context, from the founding of the nation and appears consistent with the views of the framers. The other argument is simply dismissive of the idea of nullification.

It is interesting to look at the source your author cites for his Madison quote; a blog called the Volokh Conspiracy which cites the Madison quote the author uses (and is worth reading in it's own right). Interestingly, Woods cites a different part of the same document in defense of his case for nullification:

It’s worth recalling important passages from James Madison’s famous Report of 1800 in light of the many uninformed criticisms of nullification (e.g., “Why, the courts are our infallible judges!”)

“The resolution of the General Assembly [the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

“However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”
​

The “parties to the constitutional compact” being, of course, the peoples of the states.
​

While there may be some disagreement around the margins about what is and is not "In Pursuance Thereof", there really is no disagreement on certain, big power grabs of the Federal government among those truly interested in the Rule of Law (all others being useful idiots and would-be tyrants). It is only in those extreme instances of clear disregard for Constitutional authority and Constitutional ends that nullification is even looked at.

What Constitutional end is the light bulb ban serving?

The issue has NOTHING to do with the end of "interstate commerce". The commerce clause is simply a cheap justification for the authority to legislate in that area; a means to an end.

Same thing for Obamacare.

What Constitutional end does Obamacare serve?

The answer to both those questions is "none".

The Supremacy clause in the constitution reads,

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”
​

Only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution (or Constitutional ends) are the "supreme law of the land".

In other words, the CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land; not legislation that subverts and maligns the Constitution toward arbitrary ends. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to avoid exercises of arbitrary power.

To view any clause in the Constitution as authorizing unchecked, arbitrary power is absurd. It only empowers would-be tyrants like Nancy Pelosi who mock inquires for a Constitutional justification for their actions.

YouTube - ‪Pelosi Scoffs When Asked Where Constitution Authorizes Ordering Americans To Buy Health Insurance‬‏

There is nothing more helpless than a newborn baby and the fathers were concerned that it ( the new country) live.
The country has evolved and the founding fathers foresaw that.
They left room for interpretation for those living in future years.
But now the country has become an adult (or maybe just a spoiled child or petulant teenager ) but you are still stuck at the beginning.
You like using the word "honestly" but it's too black and white and slightly insulting in that it insinuates the other party is a liar.
For someone who seems like he's going to be a lawyer that word
seems almost naive.
With half the people not paying any taxes and dependant on the government I just don't see the spirit nessesary to pursue the nulification interpretation.
Nulification is never going to happen.

 

[04SCTLS]

That Thomas Edison...what an imbecile. I mean, really, what the hell was he thinking. Light bulbs without mercury in them are sooooo last century.

Welcome back foss

It was a marvelous invention but it's only 5% efficient for light and makes 95% heat unless in an easybake oven


Nobody's perfect and Edison was wrong about Tesla's AC which could easily and extemely efficiently be transmitted over long distances.
In fact Edison attacked Tesla's AC while hung up on his own DC because brilliant as he was he hadn't thought of it and his ego got in the way (that human balance sheet contradiction thing again) and made him act like an idiot.

 

[shagdrum]

There is nothing more helpless than a newborn baby and the fathers were concerned that it ( the new country) live.
The country has evolved and the founding fathers foresaw that.
They left room for interpretation for those living in future years.
But now the country has become an adult (or maybe just a spoiled child or petulant teenager ) but you are still stuck at the beginning.

You are mistaking a false analogy for reality.

The "living constitution " means of "interpretation" is nothing more then an attempt to distort the constitution toward whatever ends a judge sees fit.

To run with your false analogy is to dismiss the rule of law; it is to promote lawlessness and the rule of man.

Probably the greatest political "invention" enshrined in the American Constitution is that no one is above the law; not even the political class. Your "analogy" disregards that and assumes that the political class is above the law. It is the promotion of elitism and aristocracy that so many have fought and died throughout our nation's history to avoid.

You like using the word "honestly" but it's too black and white and slightly insulting in that it insinuates the other party is a liar.

Then let me be clear; the "living constitution" means of "interpreting" the constitution is an attempt to lie; to deceive and distort in order to read whatever one wants into the Constitution.

There is no honesty involved but a clear disingenuousness. It is not attempting to understand and apply the principles in the constitution so much as malign it toward one's own agenda.

The aim is not truth but deception.

A PRIME example of that is the legal fiction of "substantive due process" which enshrines as legal precedent a mechanism who's purpose is to facilitate the distortion of the Constitution.

With half the people not paying any taxes and dependent on the government I just don't see the spirit necessary to pursue the nullification interpretation.
Nullification is never going to happen.

Well, that is an entirely different argument then you have been making. Are you conceding the legitimacy of nullification?

We have seen nullification with regards to the lightbulb ban in Texas. IIRC, there are some states that have at least proposed nullification measures at least with regards to the individual mandate in Obamacare (if not Obamacare itself). With the rise of the tea party movement, it is at least questionable whether there is the "spirit" necessary to pursue nullification.

You might find this video entertaining...
YouTube - ‪Nullification: Interview with a Zombie‬‏

 

[04SCTLS]

In general, substantive due process prohibits the government from infringing on fundamental constitutional liberties.

This is the definition I found which seems to be contrary to your description as legal fiction.

People are still interpreting the Bible never mind the constitution.
It's better IMO to get one's ends to call someone's interpretation wrong or misguided than to come out and call them a liar.

I think "more thoughtfully" or even half baked would be a better smoother word to use than dishonestly even if that is what you really mean.

You are mistaking a false analogy for reality.

The "living constitution " means of "interpretation" is nothing more then an attempt to distort the constitution toward whatever ends a judge sees fit.

To run with your false analogy is to dismiss the rule of law; it is to promote lawlessness and the rule of man.

Probably the greatest political "invention" enshrined in the American Constitution is that no one is above the law; not even the political class. Your "analogy" disregards that and assumes that the political class is above the law. It is the promotion of elitism and aristocracy that so many have fought and died throughout our nation's history to avoid.

You're reading too much into what I'm saying.
I'm not saying the political class is above the law.
Things change over time especially in the last 150 years.
The world is a much smaller place with media.
Other than religious books everything has advanced and evolved
since the writing of the Constitution.
The states have become less distinctive since then for reasons I have already described.
The federal government has become more important than the states governments.
When the states make a mess of themselves, instead of being responsible and sucking it up, like weaklings they ask for federal aid and stimulus funds to bail them out which mostly wind up going for salaries and benefits for government workers.
He who pays the piper calls the tune so the more the federal government
bails out weaklings the stronger it becomes.
Federal aid is hard for politicians to give up for mere scruples and principles.

 

[fossten]

Welcome back foss

It was a marvelous invention but it's only 5% efficient for light and makes 95% heat unless in an easybake oven


Nobody's perfect and Edison was wrong about Tesla's AC which could easily and extemely efficiently be transmitted over long distances.
In fact Edison attacked Tesla's AC while hung up on his own DC because brilliant as he was he hadn't thought of it and his ego got in the way (that human balance sheet contradiction thing again) and made him act like an idiot.

What's wrong with heat? Heat is good; my cats like heat from light bulbs. They 'lamp' religiously.

Heat melts ice off lightposts and stoplights. LED stoplights waste money because they ice over and people have to come out (hello, labor costs) and scrape it off. EZ Bake Ovens are now a thing of the past.

There is nothing wrong with Edison's invention. You fail to consider unintended consequences. Mercury spills are FAR less green and far more dangerous than any threat an incandescent bulb presents.

Bottom line - let the market determine the best product. Your favorite do-gooders in Washington are trying to force us by fiat to use the products that they, our Overlords, deem appropriate for use in order to appease their rabid envirowacko base. There is no reason both bulb techs cannot coexist and LET. THE. PEOPLE. CHOOSE.

Your Tesla ramble is nothing but a red herring and an ad hominem wrapped up together. Totally irrelevant.

Facts about Curly Q lightbulbs:

1. They don't last as long as they say and cost too much
2. They are a genuine environmental hazard when broken
3. The light they provide SUCKS.
4. NOBODY but guilt-ridden lefties would even use them over time if they weren't forced down our throats. (Okay, that's not a fact yet, but it will be)

 

[fossten]

The states have become less distinctive since then for reasons I have already described.
The federal government has become more important than the states governments.

That's a euphemism for "The Fed conquered the States in the Civil War and now is the tyrant of the land," which more accurately portrays the situation.

 

[shagdrum]

This is the definition I found which seems to be contrary to your description as legal fiction.

Unfortunately, this is one of this concepts that cannot be "defined". In fact, like the concepts of "social justice", "neoconservatism" and "progressivism" the concept of substantive due process is effective precisely because it is vague.

The amorphous nature of the "definition" you cite should be a red flag.

To understand ideas such has "substantive due process" you have to look not simply at the mere "definitions" given, but the history of the idea, how it is applied and the logical implications from all that.

It's better IMO to get one's ends to call someone's interpretation wrong or misguided than to come out and call them a liar.

I will give you an example of how the notion of a "living constitution" distorts the constitution by explaining why "substantive due process" is rooted in a lie.

You will not find the term "substantive due process" anywhere in the constitution nor any founding document. You will only find the idea of "due process"; specifically enshrined in the Fifth Amendment as the "Due Process Clause".

Activist judges later took that clause and divided it into two distinct concepts. The first was "procedural due process" which is clearly what was meant by the clause. Due process, by definition, is procedural, so the idea of "procedural due process" is redundant.

Those activist judges also created the fiction of "substantive due process" which was then used to create "substantive rights". In essence, they equivocated. That is an attempt to mislead and distort toward one's own end.

Even my liberal law professor pointed out how vacuous the concept of "substantive due process" is. IIRC, he described substantive due process as an empty glass into which you pour your own ideas.

You're reading too much into what I'm saying.

Actually, I think you don't see the full implications of what you are suggesting. The "living constitution" idea of "interpretation" allows judges to rewrite the constitution toward their own ends. If they are allowed to do that they are, by definition, above the law.

If the constitution is treated as "mailable" then the only limits imposed are the limits of the creativity of the political class in spinning and distorting the constitution. That is a very dangerous situation to be in for a nation.

When you start throwing in vague (and misplaced) analogies like an "evolving" constitution and what not, you are opening up Pandora's box. Who is to determine how the Constitution "evolves"? Inevitably, it will be the political class toward whatever ends they see fit. They cease to be subject to the law because they can create the law as they see fit.

You have NO objective standard by which to judge whether an action is constitutional or not. Everything is subjective. There is NO rule of law at that point.

 

[04SCTLS]

What's wrong with heat? Heat is good; my cats like heat from light bulbs. They 'lamp' religiously.

Heat melts ice off lightposts and stoplights. LED stoplights waste money because they ice over and people have to come out (hello, labor costs) and scrape it off. EZ Bake Ovens are now a thing of the past.

There is nothing wrong with Edison's invention. You fail to consider unintended consequences. Mercury spills are FAR less green and far more dangerous than any threat an incandescent bulb presents.

Bottom line - let the market determine the best product. Your favorite do-gooders in Washington are trying to force us by fiat to use the products that they, our Overlords, deem appropriate for use in order to appease their rabid envirowacko base. There is no reason both bulb techs cannot coexist and LET. THE. PEOPLE. CHOOSE.

Your Tesla ramble is nothing but a red herring and an ad hominem wrapped up together. Totally irrelevant.

Facts about Curly Q lightbulbs:

1. They don't last as long as they say and cost too much
2. They are a genuine environmental hazard when broken
3. The light they provide SUCKS.
4. NOBODY but guilt-ridden lefties would even use them over time if they weren't forced down our throats. (Okay, that's not a fact yet, but it will be)

I have 6 cats and they like rolling in the sun but I don't have any hot bulbs low enough for them to lamp up next to.
I think the hazard is overstated.
6 bulbs cost about 8.00 now
They're about as hazardous as the long tube bulbs that have been around for 60 years.
Yes, they don't last as long as advertized especially if they are facing down instead of up.
I'm not a guilt ridden leftie (I'm ambidexterous ) and I have have them all over my house except where I want dimming.
The warm color ones are fine.
Be pragmatic and buy some of the Heim Electric "Decade" bulbs for your bulb needs and you'll be set.
You're the one who hyperboled Edison so I just pointed out that even geniuses have their shortcomings and that sometimes pride trumps reason.

 

[04SCTLS]

That's a euphemism for "The Fed conquered the States in the Civil War and now is the tyrant of the land," which more accurately portrays the situation.

It's just evolution or the less darwinian term adaption over time.

People when asked call themselves Americans not Iowans or New
Jerseyans.

 

[foxpaws]

The Left loves to cherry pick Scalia and take him out of context for their own ends. Besides, Scalia didn't say anything about Texas' law.

Of course not - it hasn't come to the SCOTUS level yet...

However, Scalia's past voting record would indicate that he would strike down the Texas law, citing that on past precedent, Federal mandate regarding the interstate commerce clause does trump state law.

Why would you think he would vote differently - the cases are almost identical? I would imagine if it gets to the federal appeals level, and they find against Texas, that the SCOTUS wouldn't even consider the case - it is too similar to other cases, they would know that it wouldn't be overturned.

Quote all you want from different sources, practical experience (something you seem to be lacking in shag) certainly indicates Texas will lose this fight.

 

[fossten]

I have 6 cats and they like rolling in the sun but I don't have any hot bulbs low enough for them to lamp up next to.
I think the hazard is overstated.
6 bulbs cost about 8.00 now
They're about as hazardous as the long tube bulbs that have been around for 60 years.
Yes, they don't last as long as advertized especially if they are facing down instead of up.
I'm not a guilt ridden leftie (I'm ambidexterous ) and I have have them all over my house except where I want dimming.
The warm color ones are fine.
Be pragmatic and buy some of the Heim Electric "Decade" bulbs for your bulb needs and you'll be set.
You're the one who hyperboled Edison so I just pointed out that even geniuses have their shortcomings and that sometimes pride trumps reason.

You might think the hazard is overstated, but you've also failed to make the case for the bulbs. Their light BLOWS and they are OVERPRICED.

Don't tell me what to buy. Let's start with that.

I was using sarcasm to point out that Edison's invention was just fine for over 100 years and yet all of a sudden the government, the entity KNOWN FAR AND WIDE for making MISTAKE AFTER BLUNDER AFTER FOUL UP, suddenly decides for us which bulbs we can use. If you don't think it's political then you have your head in the sand. Either way, we should be allowed to buy what we want instead of being forced to subsidize some treehuggers' fantasy.

 

[shagdrum]

Care to actually confront the issue of nullification or are you content to simply agitate?
* * *

Do you have anything to say about that argument or are you simply going to distract from it?

Of course not - it hasn't come to the SCOTUS level yet...

However, Scalia's past voting record would indicate that he would strike down the Texas law, citing that on past precedent, Federal mandate regarding the interstate commerce clause does trump state law.

Why would you think he would vote differently - the cases are almost identical? I would imagine if it gets to the federal appeals level, and they find against Texas, that the SCOTUS wouldn't even consider the case - it is too similar to other cases, they would know that it wouldn't be overturned.

Quote all you want from different sources, practical experience (something you seem to be lacking in shag) certainly indicates Texas will lose this fight.

Apparently you have chosen to simply agitate and distract.

At least your consistent.

 

[shagdrum]

If you don't think it's political then you have your head in the sand.

IIRC, it was GE that pushed this ban because they held a large share of the market for the "preferred" light bulbs.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GE spent $39 million in lobbying in 2010.

 

[shagdrum]

Oh, as to the light bulb ban, remember this thread fossten?

 

[04SCTLS]

You might think the hazard is overstated, but you've also failed to make the case for the bulbs. Their light BLOWS and they are OVERPRICED.

Don't tell me what to buy. Let's start with that.

I was using sarcasm to point out that Edison's invention was just fine for over 100 years and yet all of a sudden the government, the entity KNOWN FAR AND WIDE for making MISTAKE AFTER BLUNDER AFTER FOUL UP, suddenly decides for us which bulbs we can use. If you don't think it's political then you have your head in the sand. Either way, we should be allowed to buy what we want instead of being forced to subsidize some treehuggers' fantasy.

From Wikpedia

For a given light output, CFLs use 20 to 33 percent of the power of equivalent incandescent lamps. Since lighting accounted for approximately 9% of household electricity usage in the United States in 2001, widespread use of CFLs could save as much as 7% of total U.S. household usage.

If a building's indoor incandescent lamps are replaced by CFLs, the heat produced due to lighting is significantly reduced. In warm climates or in office or industrial buildings where air conditioning is often required, CFLs would reduce the load on the cooling system when compared to the use of incandescent lamps, resulting in savings in electricity, in addition to the energy efficiency savings of using CFLs instead of incandescent lamps

.

The typical luminous efficacy of CFLs is 60 to 72 lumens per watt,and that of normal domestic incandescent lamps is 13 to 18 lm/W.Compared to a theoretical 100% efficient lamp (680 lm/W), these figures are equivalent to lighting efficiency ranges of 9 to 11% for CFLs (60/680 to 72/680) and 1.9 to 2.6% for incandescents (13/680 to 18/680)

CFLs are extremely cost-effective in commercial buildings when used to replace incandescent lamps. Using average U.S. commercial electricity and gas rates for 2006, a 2008 article found that replacing each 75 W incandescent lamp with a CFL resulted in yearly savings of $22 in energy usage, reduced HVAC cost, and reduced labour to change lamps. The incremental capital investment of $2 per fixture is typically paid back in about one month. Savings are greater and payback periods shorter in regions with higher electric rates and, to a lesser extent, also in regions with higher than U.S. average cooling requirements.

CFL's are 6.00 for 4 vs 99c for 4 incandescent at Home Depot but it's not even lunch money.

None of these facts have anything to do with the alleged competence or lack thereof of the Obama administration.

There's a lot of money for nothing available here to at least compensate for all the other things we've added like DVR hardrives of which I have 3 that run 24/7 and suck power that is not free.

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+US+Cable+BoxesDVRs+Fail+at+Energy+Efficiency+/article22007.htm

This is not some treehugger fantasy.

I would never tell you what to do foss, I was merely offering up a suggestion.
I'm going to buy some decade bulbs for my needs if I won't be able to buy incandescent bulbs at the store.

 

[foxpaws]

Apparently you have chosen to simply agitate and distract.

At least your consistent. ​

So - nothing - you have nothing regarding why Scalia would vote differently here - correct shag - nothing?​

 

[fossten]

From Wikpedia



.




CFL's are 6.00 for 4 vs 99c for 4 incandescent at Home Depot but it's not even lunch money.

None of these facts have anything to do with the alleged competence or lack thereof of the Obama administration.

There's a lot of money for nothing available here to at least compensate for all the other things we've added like DVR hardrives of which I have 3 that run 24/7 and suck power that is not free.

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+US+Cable+BoxesDVRs+Fail+at+Energy+Efficiency+/article22007.htm

This is not some treehugger fantasy.

I would never tell you what to do foss, I was merely offering up a suggestion.
I'm going to buy some decade bulbs for my needs if I won't be able to buy incandescent bulbs at the store.

I notice that you ignore several points I've made:

1. The heat argument
2. The mercury argument
3. The banning of bulbs I like vs. free market

Thanks for reminding me why I left this forum. It's like talking to a looping recording.