Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned

[Rhino]

Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned
Congressman doubts China imports answer to U.S. energy crisis

Posted: June 19, 2008
11:15 pm Eastern

By Alyssa Farah
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts about the ban on incandescent light bulbs effective in 2014 as a result of an energy bill signed into law earlier this year.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, says his objection is very basic – the Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to do anything remotely like banning a product that has been used safely and efficiently for more than 100 years in favor of Chinese-imported compact fluorescent light bulbs that pose considerable health and safety risks.

Poe cited the dangers associated with CFLs, which carry small amounts of mercury that can enter the environment through breakage and disposal. He also objected to reliance on the CFL alternatives when, currently, all are made in China....http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67573

[Lazarus]

Ha! Not to mention its a direct violation of the people's right remain free of an oppressive government which intends to micro-manage our lives...

The Constitution says this is a government BY THE PEOPLE, not a government by Activist Special Interest lobbyists intent on imposing their will over that of the people...:flame:

[Wyatt_Junker]

And why wasn't this raised prior to the vote? I guess in Congress you just unthinkingly ram shit through the bureaucratic mill just because. And then, right into 'we-the-people's' lives. Power is like Moon Sand (http://www.moonsandkits.com/). Its fun!

[buckeyepete]

It's funny you posted this today, because I received two CFL's in the mail this past Wednesday from BroadRiver Electric Co-op, my 'intermittent' service provider.

One, a 20W and the other 23W. They were packaged in a cute oval box with a slot in the top, that I can use to 'BANK' my savings.

Yes, they were both made in China. And, they were provided through AM Conservation Group, Inc. of Charleston, SC.

I went to their website, www.amconservationgroup.com and low and behold, nothing was mentioned about the mercury or disposal problems.

I wonder how much this cost the BroadRiver customers?

[Wolfcounsel]

We're also going to need at least 20, 000 fluorescent kight laws to amke America safe from the misuse of those things. The same as all those gun laws do.

I anticipate a national crap disaster in less than one year if we the people allow the Congressional baboons to run our lives. Not to mention we need to kick ourselves in the ass anyway for allowing public servants free reign over our affairs!:flame:

[DoctorDoom]

Government wisdom: the asswarts in DC are telling you to replace this, which costs a buck ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Bulb-Inc.jpg

... which when broken can be disposed of in this ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Bilb-IncDisp.jpg

... with this, which costs three bucks or more ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Bulb-CFL.jpg

... And which when broken must be disposed of like this (UK rules - ours are similar).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Bulb-Disp.jpg

AlBore, the ecojerkoffs and Congress call that progress.

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
-- Euripides, Greek tragic dramatist (484 BC - 406 BC)

[DesertFox]

What actually happens:

1. Break bulb.

2. Sweep up everything in sight into plastic bag.

3. Put plastic bag into empty cereal box.

4. Throw away empty cereal box.

[Lazarus]

...from BroadRiver Electric Co-op, my 'intermittent' service provider...:rotflmbo: :thumb: Hush Pete - You're endangering my keyboard with the threat of uncontrolled spewed ice water...:roar:

[Beowulf]

Hey, Libs! I use energy saver bulbs because I want to use them, not because you told me to do so! I replace my old:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Bulb-Inc.jpg

with:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Bulb-CFL.jpg

when these:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Bulb-Inc.jpg
die out!

BTW, in either case, they BOTH end up in the kitchen waste basket.

[Penguin]

As Jayson Lewis said on Rush's show today, if they are so safe and these detestable leftist legislators are so in love with these Compact Mercury Cannons, let us see what would happen if one was dropped and broken in the House Chamber during business hours?

You can bet all of these leeches would be running out of those chambers faster then Rosie O'Donell chasing down a Good Humor truck.

[Timberwolf]

Damn...that's a visual I REALLY didn't need, Penquin...damned funny though. :biggrin:

[Timberwolf]

Hey, Libs! I use energy saver bulbs because I want to use them, not because you told me to do so!

~~snip~~

BTW, in either case, they BOTH end up in the kitchen waste basket.
Ditto that B...

[Riverboat]

Anytime I feel inclined to come to George's defense, I keep going back to the fact that he'll be remembered as the man who made the world safe from the danger of the light bulb.

[BarkleUSA]

...in a few years you'll be seeing law firm commercials asking "Have you been exposed to mercury vapor from those dangerous twisty bulbs. Call Shiester and Shamski law offices to make them pay."

Personally, I replaced all my incandescent bulbs with the new energy saving ones - they produce much less heat and are supposed to last 5 years (which remains to be seen - so far none have burned out). The light isn't as warm or bright in my opinion but it is nonetheless tolerable and I'm not as concerned with making sure all lights are out when not in the room as before.

I chose to do it - and I damn sure don't like the thought that the gov would force me to.

[Maggie_T]

I'll use the dammed "eco-friendly" bulbs IF I want to, and WHEN I want to. And CONgress can kiss my eco-unfriendly ass. :flame:

How about we dump all the those noxious bulbs in CONgress, and replace them with better-working ones. I'm talking about the "light bulbs" a.k.a. senators and congressmen/women. How about that?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Maggie_T:
How about we dump all the those noxious bulbs in CONgress, and replace them with better-working ones. I'm talking about the "light bulbs" a.k.a. senators and congressmen/women. How about that?



:moo: Yes, but Maggie dear, there's nothing I can do about that, because my congresspersons aren't the problem. It's the other 532 boobs that need to be replaced. If only the folks in other districts/states were as wise as the ones in mine.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Congress always pulls this kind of shit whether its increased smog checks on our vehicles or last January's upgrade on AC units with higher sear ratings which in effect raised the cost of them by nearly 100%. They don't give any heed to your pocket book or how you're gonna pay for their new ideas. They don't care. They just have lots of neat-o ideas and they want to save the world from the DANGER of the scary things.

Lightbulbs are just one more liberty-beating victim in a long line of illegal TKOs. And each year there's more tomfukkery as these clowns add to a list of growing meddling minutiae.

Anyone remember Al Gore's low flo shitters? Before Al Gore I could drop a bomb and flush her in one note. Now I have to kick the handle 3X just to git my sludge down the slow trickle water slide. So, in effect, I waste more water per deuce than before.

Same with showers. I used to love the kickass water pressure of pre-1992. I could take showers so fast that I could enjoy my breakfast. Just a short quick blast under the taint and a pop under each armpit. Done.

Now I have to wait underneath a damn dripline. It feels like some alcoholic asian with a swollen prostate trying to tinkle on me after dialysis. I just have to stand there and hope to God that the soap residue leaves my skin in the next hour and a half. I'd rather get spit on by a bunch of Laker's fans under the tunnel to the locker room and probably get a lot cleaner a lot quicker. But, thanks to Congress, here we are. All fukked up, stinkier'n skunk, smelling our own shit hardening in the Al Gore 2000 Enviro-Wonder-Bowl.

Lightbulbs are just the last little raping we got, but the list is much longer than that and will only get longer.

[BuckeyeMike]

Ain't this a bitch....a bunch of dimbulbs telling me what lightbulbs to use.

[DeclinetoState]

Yes, they were both made in China. And, they were provided through AM Conservation Group, Inc. of Charleston, SC.

I went to their website, www.amconservationgroup.com and low and behold, nothing was mentioned about the mercury or disposal problems.

I wonder how much this cost the BroadRiver customers?
Call, write, fax or e-mail them and find out.

http://amconservationgroup.com/fw/header_contactus.gif

AM Conservation Group, Inc.
2301 Charleston Regional Parkway
Charleston, SC 29492 USA

Tel 843.971.1414, 843.971.1467
Fax 843.971.1472, 843.849.8242

Order Line:
(800) GOOD.BUY/ (800) 777.5655

Customer Service:
(800) 777.5655 ext. 10

Sales:
(800) 777.5655 ext. 19


Email:
amcg@nac.net

[Beowulf]

...in a few years you'll be seeing law firm commercials asking "Have you been exposed to mercury vapor from those dangerous twisty bulbs. Call Shiester and Shamski law offices to make them pay."


I'll answer that. Yes, frequently! You know those cabin lights in an airplane? Well, they're fluorescent straight bulbs with a good deal of mercury of their own. Difference is, those in the airplane are quite flimsy and break easy. I think that if you fly, you are in a health hazard. After all, a bulb may go "pop."

I've had a few during removal or installation break in my face as I'm looking up from underneath. I look forward to my "get rich quick" lawsuit from Shiester and Shamski, and so should you!

[Penguin]

Now I have to wait underneath a damn dripline. It feels like some alcoholic asian with a swollen prostate trying to tinkle on me after dialysis.

Best line I have heard all month...:thumb:

However, I assume that would be far more preferable than Michael Moore doing the same after draining the neighbor's swimming pool after cleaning out all of the burritos and bean dip at the local Taco Bell.

Apologies to TWolf for giving him two terrible visions within one thread...

[cerberus]

I have nothing against the old bulbs per se, but I don't see how this particular law would be unconstitutional. The last time I checked, Congress still had the power to regulate interstate commerce. An unneeded and foolish law, maybe, maybe not, but not unconstitutional.

[Taylor1]

I have nothing against the old bulbs per se, but I don't see how this particular law would be unconstitutional. The last time I checked, Congress still had the power to regulate interstate commerce. An unneeded and foolish law, maybe, maybe not, but not unconstitutional.

In all fairness, your right.

[Beowulf]

I have nothing against the old bulbs per se, but I don't see how this particular law would be unconstitutional. The last time I checked, Congress still had the power to regulate interstate commerce. An unneeded and foolish law, maybe, maybe not, but not unconstitutional.
Maybe so, Cerb, but you know as well as I that our current crop of elected officials are so bent on blaming people, particularly Americans, for the creation of Gorbal Warming that they'll ban anything and everything that might be a cause. As with taxes, they have no clue when to stop. Slowly but surely, our right to be able to think for themselves is being taken away.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Slowly but surely, our right to be able to think for themselves is being taken away." --Beowulf

I think we are all past the point of having to be told that. It's also been more than a few seconds since the bell rang for the match. Let's kick the crap out of the liberals!

[DoctorDoom]

I have nothing against the old bulbs per se, but I don't see how this particular law would be unconstitutional. The last time I checked, Congress still had the power to regulate interstate commerce. An unneeded and foolish law, maybe, maybe not, but not unconstitutional.Show us in the Constitution where the US government is authorized to dictate to the citizenry what kind of light bulbs they can use, or how much water their toilets can hold, or how warm or cool their homes can be.

You as a liberaloser have no qualms about living in the grip of a monolithic, unaccountable, all-controlling government that micromanages your pitiful, meaningless life so that you don't have to think, but real people have fought wars to throw out governments like that.

BTW, liberal, do you not see the irony in the same government that strictly regulates mercury usage and disposal passing laws to mandate that mercury-containing devices be installed in our homes, where they are subject to breakage resulting in exzpensive HAZMAT cleanup? Why? To "fight" the consequences of a non-existent problem.

The world would be an almost infinitely better place if all liberals could be relocated to some desolate location where they can feel each others' pain and regulate themselves into extinction, thereby leaving the real world to those who don't want a Megananny State.

"Laws are to govern all alike — those opposed as well as those who favor them. I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution."
-- Ulysses S. Grant, First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1869

[Wolfcounsel]

"I have nothing against the old bulbs per se, but I don't see how this particular law would be unconstitutional. The last time I checked, Congress still had the power to regulate interstate commerce. An unneeded and foolish law, maybe, maybe not, but not unconstitutional." --cerberus

My turn.

When the government sock monkeys start regulating how many farts you can emit in a 24 hour period, then you can shut up about it also. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress cannot regulate your farts.

Farking liberals need to be shit canned in Antarctica!
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Maggie_T]

Love ya, Counselor. :hugs:

[Maggie_T]

I think we are all past the point of having to be told that. It's also been more than a few seconds since the bell rang for the match. Let's kick the crap out of the liberals!

http://foolstown.com/sm/yaya.gif Me first! Me first!


:evilgrin:

[Wolfcounsel]

Go, Maggie! I'm next.:thumb:

Love ya too!

[Maggie_T]

(putting on her kicking shoes) Oh boy! :devil:

[DesertFox]

Farking liberals need to be shit canned in Antarctica! Huh uh. They might escape there. Load them aboard a star ship, tell them they're mankind's best hope and that they're on the way to the Antares system.

Then shoot them into the sun.

[Penguin]

When the government sock monkeys start regulating how many farts you can emit in a 24 hour period, then you can shut up about it also. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress cannot regulate your farts.

Farking liberals need to be shit canned in Antarctica!
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

That means that we should kidnap Moore, O'Donnell, Roseanne and The Bride of Satan's Thighs and place their rumps against against the nearest gas line. Just breakfast alone would power 50 large cities for 6 months.

As for Antarctica, please do not send those wastes of a carbon footprint down here!

http://www.vickiblackwell.com/images/penguin2.jpg

[DesertFox]

I have nothing against the old bulbs per se, but I don't see how this particular law would be unconstitutional. 4th Amendment, unreasonable searches and seizures plus the right to be secure in your person, which includes your home. The last time I checked, Congress still had the power to regulate interstate commerce. An unneeded and foolish law, maybe, maybe not, but not unconstitutional. Yes. Unconstitutional. It's totally unreasonable for Congress, or anybody else, to tell you that you can't use something that's been used safely worldwide for over a century. It's precisely this sort of intrusiveness by govt that the 4A exists to prevent.

[MaximumSam]

Yes. Unconstitutional. It's totally unreasonable for Congress, or anybody else, to tell you that you can't use something that's been used safely worldwide for over a century. It's precisely this sort of intrusiveness by govt that the 4A exists to prevent.

I'm not aware of a clause in the Constitution that laws must be reasonable. Not that I would be against that sort of thing.

[DesertFox]

4th Amendment, Sam.

To be sure, if we want to get picky we can say that it's okay for a law to be unreasonable so long as its implementation is not. If you can square that circle, you more liberal than I.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probably cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized
Operative clause: The right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

[Rhino]

The last time I checked, Congress still had the power to regulate interstate commerce. An unneeded and foolish law, maybe, maybe not, but not unconstitutional.Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce for the sake of interstate commerce. They don't have the right to regulate under the guise of interstate commerce for a PC notion, for a social agenda, cuz they feel like it or because their favorite color is blue and they want to see more blue products.

[MaximumSam]

4th Amendment, Sam.

To be sure, if we want to get picky we can say that it's okay for a law to be unreasonable so long as its implementation is not. If you can square that circle, you more liberal than I.

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. It doesn't allow one to break the law in their own home. Also, it would have no effect on a law regulating the production and sale of light bulbs.

Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce for the sake of interstate commerce. They don't have the right to regulate under the guise of interstate commerce for a PC notion, for a social agenda, cuz they feel like it or because their favorite color is blue and they want to see more blue products.

That battle was lost a while ago in the war on drugs.

[DesertFox]

it would have no effect on a law regulating the production and sale of light bulbs. It would if someone is going to enter your home to ensure you are no longer using the old bulbs, or to ensure you are disposing of the new bulbs in the required way.

[MaximumSam]

It would if someone is going to enter your home to ensure you are no longer using the old bulbs, or to ensure you are disposing of the new bulbs in the required way.

I'm not aware of the Fourth Amendment ever being used to determine whether a law was reasonable or not. Typically, the reasonableness of of a search or seizure is based on the intrusiveness of the search itself, and the amount of information the state had. Thus, in this case an officer probably wouldn't be able to enter your home and search for light bulbs without a warrant (although, I doubt that type of thing would be going on under this law).

[Rhino]

That battle was lost a while ago in the war on drugs.Doesn't mean it's right, or even Constitutional for that matter. Besides, the war on drugs hardly qualifies as a PC notion, a social agenda, or something they just feel like.

[DeclinetoState]

Besides, the war on drugs hardly qualifies as a PC notion, a social agenda, or something they just feel like.It does for those who are against it.

I think.

[DesertFox]

America wasn't founded on the idea that the fed govt would tell us what to use and what not to use among legal items. In fact, it was founded on just the opposite principle, that ordinary men and women were perfectly capable of living their own lives without anybody supervising them for their own good, for the good of society or for a hearty hi-ho Silver.

The Constitution is predicated on the principle of people living their own lives without undue interference from govt, and that is why this ban is unConstitutional even if the 4A doesn't hold up -- though I think it does.

[DeclinetoState]

But who's going to protect us from poisoned tomaters, then?

:confused:

[BuckeyeMike]

America wasn't founded on the idea that the fed govt would tell us what to use and what not to use among legal items. In fact, it was founded on just the opposite principle, that ordinary men and women were perfectly capable of living their own lives without anybody supervising them for their own good, for the good of society or for a hearty hi-ho Silver.

The Constitution is predicated on the principle of people living their own lives without undue interference from govt, and that is why this ban is unConstitutional even if the 4A doesn't hold up -- though I think it does.

Then all the anti-smoking bullshit has to be unconstitutional..........tobbacco is a legal item.

[DesertFox]

Of course (most of) it's unConstitutional. There was never any doubt.

The govt can legitimately ban smoking in public places, meaning those owned by everyone in common. It cannot legitimately do that on private property, yet does so anyway.

Talk about liberal fascism.

[BuckeyeMike]

I'm guessing that the government will demand that these dangerous light bulbs be used in public places.......right? Makes one go................hmmmmmmmmmm!

[Neil Peart]

I'm guessing that the government will demand that these dangerous light bulbs be used in public places.......right? Makes one go................hmmmmmmmmmm!Great, now I can get mercury poisoning at my local Cracker Barrel.