fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Yep I remember.
Notice the libs have to resort to red herrings to even discuss the subject.
The banning of Edison's invention is indefensible.
Texas Unconstitutionally Attempts To Nullify Federal Law On Incandescent Light Bulbs
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
Notice the libs have to resort to red herrings to even discuss the subject.
The banning of Edison's invention is indefensible.
Oh but you came back as your old cheerful self.
I have answered to your points and suggested you could buy a 24 pack of bulbs you like rated for 20,000 hours for maybe 40.00 and that would last you and your cats a long time if this ban actually comes to pass.
You and your cats may like the heat incandescent bulbs put out but that is not a valid argument for using them generally.
Yes CFLs have mercury but the hazard level is comparable to regular tubes that have been around for 60 years and the bulbs themselves are small compared to tubes.
Like everything else CFLs have their plusses and minuses but IMO the plusses outweigh the minuses.
They could make gasoline cheaper if they put lead back into it but you don't have the freedom to buy leaded gas anymore.
Lead was good for a while in the early days allowing an easy raising of the octane but as more and more cars got on the road refiners were forced by the government in 1973 to take the lead out and raise octane through better methods.
The lead ban was a good thing.
It remains to be seen how the bulb ban will go when the time comes.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I made more than just the 'cats' argument wrt heat. You're being dishonest by trying to truncate my responses.
There are always unintended consequences.
You still FAIL to address the fact that it is not the government's job to tell me what I can and cannot buy, nor have you addressed the argument about the special interests that pushed this.
You continue to ignore my points and respond with empty platitudes.
Bye now.
There are always unintended consequences.
You still FAIL to address the fact that it is not the government's job to tell me what I can and cannot buy, nor have you addressed the argument about the special interests that pushed this.
You continue to ignore my points and respond with empty platitudes.
Bye now.
But it is the government's job to set standards
and tell you what you can and cannot legally buy.
Special interest pushing is nothing new.
Used to be all the rectangular headlight bulbs on american cars for 15-20 years were mandated by special interests.
Why do you think we have lobbyists.
Companies want to get something for the money the government shakes out of them in the political donation protection racket Washington runs.
Look what happened to Microsoft because they wouldn't do the lobbying and shmoozing some in washington called downright unpatriotic.
No foss - you have gone the red herring route - the initial post was regarding the Texas law and if it was unconstitutional -
It has nothing to do with whether or not the light bulbs are a good idea - or if you like them, or if you think Edison's invention is the be all to end all.
It has to do with the law, not the items discussed within the law. It could be about congress mandating that we all switch over to ethanol based fuels. The argument wouldn't be about the type of fuel, but whether congress has constitutional support, in the interstate commerce amendment, to legally create such a mandate.
Past voting by the court indicates that they will side with the feds, and not Texas in this matter.
Do you see them doing something different foss?
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Everyone who is honestly attempting to debate regarding lightbulbs here has a few good points to make. And then there are the polemicist(s) who mostly seem to want to tell us how wonderful the guvmint is.
Glad to see you Foss!
Let's all be friends.
KS
Glad to see you Foss!
Let's all be friends.
KS
Ken, did you read the first post - it has nothing to do with the bulbs and everything to do with the law, and the constitutionality of it...
If this thread were about the bulb maybe the first post would have at least mentioned 'mercury' or 'curly' or some other aspect of bulbs - at least in passing...
The bulbs are the example of the law trying to be applied and are also something everyone can relate to.
Examples enhance and enlighten(pun intended
) the argument about the law.
Yes, and you have conveniently avoided the actual constitutionality of it.
The original discussion was what is and is not constitutional. Your focus is on how the SCOTUS may or may not vote.
The two are not the same...unless you can prove that the SCOTUS is infallible.
Shag - the court does decide what is and isn't constitutional - this court will strike the texas law - and your 'hero' Scalia will be first in line Shag.
the court is in no way infallible - no organization comprised of humans can be. However, they do decide what is and isn't 'constitutional'. You might not agree with them, but they are the arbitrators regarding the law of the land.
You define the constitution one way - they will define it their way. Only one way counts - theirs.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Really? Show me where it says that in the Constitution. I'll wait.
In other words, you are not willing to discuss what is and is not constitutional yet you admitted that is the ultimate issue. You are distracting from the issue, as usual.
Besides, you have proven numerous times on this forum that you don't know Scalia's jurisprudence from a hole in the ground but are more then willing to distort it toward your own end. Considering the fact that your sole purpose is to agitate and distract from any honest discourse, it is clearly too juicy an opportunity to use a distortion of Scalia as a wedge.
You have YET to actually say ANYTHING concerning the constitutionality of nullification. That is the issue and that is what you are purposely working to avoid.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
She is now the Official Thread Monitor®. Bow before her or she shall smite thee with her anger.
This would probably fall under commerce law as it has developed over time.
When it suits you you fully support government telling people what they can and cannot do such as states restricting abortions and Planned Parenthood for example.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So, there's no point in arguing Constitutionality anymore. We just need to argue CommerceClausicality. Right?
False, and a red herring. I never said government should restrict Planned Parenthood. I have, however, and still do, vehemently oppose MY tax dollars being sent to a lawbreaking organization of baby exterminators. And yes, just as murder of born humans should be illegal, so should murder of unborn humans. Every human has the right to life under the Constitution.
Please stay on topic, or Foxpaws the Thread Monitor will smite you.
The government has the authority for the regulation of commerce.
Regulation also includes product safety.
You want to be reasonably assured that the food you buy at the grocery store or at a restaurant is safe to eat for example.
If it doesn't fall under the Constitution the it falls under Duh!
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So what's unsafe about incandescent light bulbs?
In person nothing unless you grab a hot bulb or step on tiny shards of broken glass but the more power we consume from our electrical sources the greater the wear on the infrastructure and the more of it we have to build and maintain.
To be more "safe" economically we can consume less electricity using more efficient devices.
It at least makes up for the greater energy consumption we have with our modern devices that weren't around 20 years ago.
The incandescent bulbs shouldn't be banned per se just taxed heavily to make up the difference in operating cost over life but then there will be a black market like cigarettes.
As it is only the standard bulbs are scheduled to be banned and not all the other incandescent ones like heat lamps and chandeliers for example.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Wait a minute...grabbing a hot bulb can injure somebody? WHAT?????? That's a revelation - I'm pretty sure nobody in the last 100 years has figured that out!
What happens when you step on broken shards of a CFL bulb while in a puddle of mercury?
You're redefining the word 'safe' to mean 'efficient' - that's absurd and it's clear that you know it, since you had to put quotes around the word. That's dishonest and weak. Next thing I know, you'll be telling me that a Prius is 'safer' than a Navigator.
If you are struggling to convince yourself with these pathetic arguments, how do you expect to convince me?
Well it may be a stretch to define safety as the safety of our continued supply of electricity.
You just asked me what's unsafe about incandescent bulbs.
They're glass and they get hot enough to burn if you.
You didn't ask what's unsafe about CFLs.
I've had a few CFLs break on me that got dropped as well as regular tubes and there's no puddle of mercury as there isn't that much in there to make one.
Not enough for it to even roll up into a tiny ball like in science class if they still do that in school.
I'm not going to suddenly convince you to change your opinion no matter what I say anyways.
Do I 'believe' it is constitutional - why would any one care about that? What does it matter what you and I think about this shag - it only matters what the court 'thinks'.
Scalia will strike it down - it will march with his other decisions.
The court will match this up against the commerce law and look at precedent - it will then rule accordingly. It will uphold the congressional edict.
Why do you think it wouldn't shag - it very closely resembles many cases where the court ruled that congress can mandate exactly this sort of thing. For instance it mandates gas per mile that a car manufacturer must meet over its production output. That is constitutional according to the court. We are then forced to buy cars that meet this congressional mandate. Congress forced the drug manufacturers to package their drugs in a certain manner. We are now forced to attempt to peel off some stupid foil backing, and this packaging adds to the cost of the final goods. That is constitutional by applying the interstate commerce clause.
I am really curious shag on why you think that this particular case the Texas law would be upheld by the court.
And do you think it is fiscally sound that the Texas Legislature did this? It is rather obvious it will be struck down - but the state attorney will be required to defend the Texas law all the way up the court ladder - that is ridiculously expensive, especially for a state that is in the red, and slashing budgets.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I asked you that because you were making the nonsensical argument that the government's job was to protect us from unsafe products, as a way to justify that the commerce clause covers banning incandescent light bulbs.
And furthermore, the government doesn't give a rat's ass about our continued supply of electricity. Obama himself said he would bankrupt the coal companies and that electricity costs would skyrocket under his energy policy.
The only things the government leaders care about are enriching themselves, subjugating the citizenry/subjects, and pandering to the lefty special interests who hate American ingenuity, individualism, and capitalism and would rather see us revert back to being a Third World Country.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
False. No one is forced to buy a car.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
What a hypocrite - like you give a rat's ass about budget overruns.
Safety of products is an example of government interest but it isn't the only one.
Your other statements are your gloomy venting opinion.
Somehow I didn't know that we were a third world country at one time and are in danger of reverting back to one because of unscupulous liberals.