Texas Unconstitutionally Attempts To Nullify Federal Law On Incandescent Light Bulbs
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
I bet most Texans do.What a hypocrite - like you give a rat's ass about budget overruns.
Stupid law that will have to be defended in the courts at a cost to the people of Texas. And what will it end up proving? Nothing - other than the Texas Legislature is more concerned with 'appealing' to a certain group of people, than actually representing all the people in a responsible manner.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Safety of products is the ONLY argument you originally tried to use to somehow give the government Constitutional authority to ban incandescents.
It's your own fault for using an absurd argument, not mine.
Your other statements are your banal, vacuous opinion.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Those b*stards. How dare they try to govern themselves. Don't they know that their attempts to live independent and free are costing the Federal government loads of money to quash? *cue outrageous outrage*
Correct comparison - use a Coleman lantern, candles, retrofit your house for gas lights, leds are nice, buy a lot of indiglo watches.
If it wasn't so incredibly apparent that the texas law will be struck down in higher court - I would say go for it. But, it will, there is no question that it will be declared unconstitutional.
The government has the right to set regulations and I used product safety as an example because it is an easy concept to understand but I was not specifically saying the bulbs are being banned because they have been declared unsafe.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
False comparison - you can't even draw the two statements together. Where did I say that the government should force people to use incandescent bulbs?Correct comparison - use a Coleman lantern, candles, retrofit your house for gas lights, leds are nice, buy a lot of indiglo watches.
But keep persisting in your dishonest rhetoric - it never fails to reveal you as a liar.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Wait a minute. Weren't you just whining (albeit hypocritically) about the wasteful legal costs, and now you're saying go for it?
Make up your mind.
Ya also gotta love your mentality - "Don't fight the Fed, because 'I' think you'll lose." Welcome to groupthink, proof by assertion, and circular reasoning.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Except for the pesky fact that it doesn't apply to incandescent bulbs.
But please, continue to try to explain how the government should be allowed to ban incandescent bulbs because they are, er, unsafe, or something.
My quote...
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.
You then correctly stated we aren't 'forced to buy cars'
My response was
Just as no one is forced to buy a light bulb.
referring back to my original supposition...
Just put in stuff for bulbs.
For instance it (the government) mandates certain qualities light bulb manufacturers must meet over its production output. That is constitutional according to the court. We are then forced to buy light bulbs that meet this congressional mandate.
I never said they were unsafe or tried to argue to ban them for that reason.
You asked me if incandescent bulbs were unsafe and I said they're made of glass and run hot enough to burn the skin and from there you somehow turned me into a strawman arguing that incandescents should be banned because they are, er unsafe.
And you accuse foxy of velvetively putting words in people's mouths to manipulatively further her arguments as a matter of practice .
You're funny
and about as subtle as a hammer.
Then prove it.
ALL you have done is offered assertions and agitation. There has been no empirical evidence nor logical proof offered to support your claim.
ANY discussion about how the SCOTUS may rule is nothing but a red herring unless and until it is proven that nullification is not constitutional.
Any argument citing court rulings to prove that is inherently circular because it assumes that the court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional in all cases, which is the very issue in question.
All your posturing serves to reframe the debate in a way that excludes the possibility that nullification is constitutional. It is not an attempt at honest discourse but an insulting attempt to mislead.
Let's try this again. Here is a brief synopsis of the argument for nullification:
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.
Can to honestly confront that argument?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.
This is just like the ETHANOL SCAM. If ETHANOL is really so good then why does the government mandate it's use and subsidize it heavily? Wouldn't people want it in their fuel? Heck people might even pay more for the E10?
Oh never mind the facts about how ethanol wrecks your fuel economy, does nothing for foreign oil dependence, rots out the rubber parts in carburators, ruins small engines and is a general menace. I don't think anybody would want that crap in their gas. The only reason why this scam hasn't been ended is because of all the CORN LOBBY's and IOWA.
The same applies to the lightbulbs. Under what authority can the government ban them? They aren't hazardous and in no way hurt society. If the crappy mercury bulbs and the $60 LED bulbs that overheat and grow dim over time were truly viable replacements shouldn't they replace incandescents on their own? I wonder which people behind this were getting campaign contributions from CFL makers???
The green argument is also bogus. Supply the incandescents with renewable energy from wind/solar etc and where's the problem? Basically I've yet to hear one legit reason for the government to ban these bulbs. Who do they hurt and how do they hurt them? This is like our government randomly deciding to ban all blue cars "just because".
Oh never mind the facts about how ethanol wrecks your fuel economy, does nothing for foreign oil dependence, rots out the rubber parts in carburators, ruins small engines and is a general menace. I don't think anybody would want that crap in their gas. The only reason why this scam hasn't been ended is because of all the CORN LOBBY's and IOWA.
The same applies to the lightbulbs. Under what authority can the government ban them? They aren't hazardous and in no way hurt society. If the crappy mercury bulbs and the $60 LED bulbs that overheat and grow dim over time were truly viable replacements shouldn't they replace incandescents on their own? I wonder which people behind this were getting campaign contributions from CFL makers???
The green argument is also bogus. Supply the incandescents with renewable energy from wind/solar etc and where's the problem? Basically I've yet to hear one legit reason for the government to ban these bulbs. Who do they hurt and how do they hurt them? This is like our government randomly deciding to ban all blue cars "just because".
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
How many times do I have to repeat this? You just need to go back and reread your own comments.I never said they were unsafe or tried to argue to ban them for that reason.
You asked me if incandescent bulbs were unsafe and I said they're made of glass and run hot enough to burn the skin and from there you somehow turned me into a strawman arguing that incandescents should be banned because they are, er unsafe.
And you accuse foxy of velvetively putting words in people's mouths to manipulatively further her arguments as a matter of practice .
You're funny
You ARGUED that the Fed has the right to regulate for reasons of safety - and you made this ARGUMENT in order to JUSTIFY the Fed regulating light bulbs...
So I naturally asked you what was unsafe about them.
If that's not what you meant, then we need to return to my original argument - can you tell me why the government should have the right to ban light bulbs?
Again, if you can't even understand your own reasoning, what makes you think you can convince me?
Shag - did you read the article - it is all about how the SCOTUS may rule on this and why... there is no way that isn't what the discussion is about.
Except - you want it to be about something else...
So, how do you think the court will rule - and why? Where do you think Scalia will come down? That is what the first post is wondering - it places even Scalia on the side of congress, and not Texas.
Always want to avoid the bigger picture, don't you.
The article is about Texas' efforts to nullify the light bulb ban. The article then bases it's standard of judgement on opinions from the SCOTUS.
The entire idea of nullification is based on the notion that the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.
Since that is the issue this entire debate hinges on, to use what the SCOTUS says as the standard of judgement is false, circular reasoning.
To continue to inject that as the standard of judgement is to attempt to narrow the debate in a way that rejects the idea that nullification may be valid and constitutional. It is a misleading attempt to delegitimize instead of honestly confronting the issue.
Shag - no court has upheld nullification - the Constitution does hot have anything that would provide the states with the power to declare federal laws moot or unconstitutional.
The Constitution is a form of law established by the people and is 'above' the states. It is why things like the Civil Rights Act obliterated the segregation laws in the south, federal law trumped local law - and the states couldn't nullify that Act.
If the SCOTUS would allow this texas law to stand - then, states could enact Jim Crow laws again - that isn't going to happen.
The Constitution is a form of law established by the people and is 'above' the states. It is why things like the Civil Rights Act obliterated the segregation laws in the south, federal law trumped local law - and the states couldn't nullify that Act.
If the SCOTUS would allow this texas law to stand - then, states could enact Jim Crow laws again - that isn't going to happen.
I sort of misspoke and should have said product efficiency.
I was thinking of product safety as an example of government regulation..
They justify banning them because they're only 2.5% efficient and waste 97.5% of the energy used to power them.
They don't meet a new standard for efficiency.
It has nothing to do with personal safety.
I'm sorry that became muddled.
Relevance?
Your argument is premised on the idea that the SCOTUS infallibly determines what is and is not Constitutional.
If we go with your standard of judgement, then slavery was Constitutional because of the Dred Scott decision.
How does slavery comport with the idea of Natural Rights that you have conceded are inherent in the Constitution?
What happened to "all men [being] created equal"?
I don't think the fed should have the right to force efficiency either. Let the market decide. Logically the more efficient products should pay for themselves over time and therefor people will buy them.
No efficiency standards+no subsidies=perfect. May the best product win.
There's a reason why these new bulbs haven't wiped out incans just like DVD wiped out VHS. It's because they simply aren't as good as incans.
The same is why the government subsidizes and mandates ethanol usage in gas. It's because it's a crappy product and simply not as good as pure gas.
Let me ask again. Why should we be FORCED to use an inferior product for no good reason? The only valid reason IMO is safety/public health. That's why lead gas had to be discontinued despite it being the best option.
Ethanol is a makework project that consumes more energy than it saves and gives us crappier gas but there are real savings to be had with these bulbs despite the special interests so it's really an apple and orange comparison you're arguing.
7% of US elecricity consumption goes for incandescent lighting so it could be cut to 3%.
They don't.
They just assume that power to themselves.
I think the more relevant question is under what Constitutional authority does the government have the power to legislate in this area.
Also, toward what Constitutional end does this legislation serve?
Slavery was constitutional - it was written within the constitution - I.E. number of votes the owners had depended on the number of slaves they had.
The constitution was a reflection of its time. Women, Blacks, heck, non-landowners all had to wait. It doesn't mean that women didn't have natural rights - it just means the constitution hadn't included them at that point. The constitution only deals with the 'rights' that have been accepted within society at that time. It then is amended when new 'rights' have been accepted by society.
Natural rights don't change - but societies acceptance of them does.