U.S. Tyranny Marches On!

[bobevenson]

On Jan. 1, 2014, it will be lights out for standard incandescent 60- and 40-watt light bulbs. In order to comply with efficiency standards outlined in the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law by President George Bush in 2007, it will be illegal to manufacture or import them after Dec. 31.

[EagerForTruth]

Ha, in my browsing of threads this one's a quick read and response:

You call the U.S. Tyrannical for passing laws that regulate certain things about society....especially in this case one that makes marked improvements to our country, indeed, the world as a whole.

So may I infer that you believe the U.S. government should not regulate anything or else they are Tyrannical?

[bobevenson]

Ha, in my browsing of threads this one's a quick read and response:

You call the U.S. Tyrannical for passing laws that regulate certain things about society....especially in this case one that makes marked improvements to our country, indeed, the world as a whole.

So may I infer that you believe the U.S. government should not regulate anything or else they are Tyrannical?

When the fucking government tells you what kind of lightbulb you can buy, that's tyranny, pure and simple, and if you can't understand that, please read the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[EagerForTruth]

Well as a generality I'll say that my view of a government and it's people is the people (in our case by voting democratically and giving us influence over it) hand over the control of society as a whole to the government so that the government may prevent chaos and crime, protect it's citizens and promote their well-being.

Specifically in this case the Constitution expressly gives the federal government the power to make laws. I don't suppose you want me to go get the exact wording, but it can regulate commerce, raise taxes, a bunch of other stuff.......and unfortunately for your taste I guess ominously includes "makes any other laws necessary" Either way, it's an issue to bring up with your congresspeople, or become an activist so that congresspeople who pursue policies and laws you agree with get elected.

[bobevenson]

Well as a generality I'll say that my view of a government and it's people is the people (in our case by voting democratically and giving us influence over it) hand over the control of society as a whole to the government so that the government may prevent chaos and crime, protect it's citizens and promote their well-being.

Specifically in this case the Constitution expressly gives the federal government the power to make laws. I don't suppose you want me to go get the exact wording, but it can regulate commerce, raise taxes, a bunch of other stuff.......and unfortunately for your taste I guess ominously includes "makes any other laws necessary" Either way, it's an issue to bring up with your congresspeople, or become an activist so that congresspeople who pursue policies and laws you agree with get elected.

Unconstitutional laws should be defied and ignored by all Americans. There is absolutely no reason for a law that bans lightbulbs unless you're a left-wing liberal with a socialist agenda.

[EagerForTruth]

Oh, you again hehe Well I suppose that's an argument for the constitutional experts and lawyers, but one that thousands of times the government has one and generally always will. Myself, I'm not so worried about it that it bothers me, time marches on, laws change, standards improve, sometimes in lurches. But even still for the moment theres enough democratic flavor and intent for the common welfare in the U.S. that i'm not gonna call them on things I happen to think probably will help a bit. After all the balance of people and what governs them is about balancing exactly that, freedoms with what is good and needs to be altered. Unconstitutional - as I said is rather more an an interpretation issue than a black or white fact - rather always has been.

I think what's most intriguing to me of your comment is - why lightbulbs?

[bobevenson]

I think what's most intriguing to me of your comment is - why lightbulbs?

Why not, unless you think freedom comes in different sizes.

[Felasco]

On Jan. 1, 2014, it will be lights out for standard incandescent 60- and 40-watt light bulbs. In order to comply with efficiency standards outlined in the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law by President George Bush in 2007, it will be illegal to manufacture or import them after Dec. 31.

I'm not positive but I thought I heard that they had changed their mind on this. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Anyway, the point of the law was to make a contribution to addressing climate change, which could be the leading challenge of this century. Honestly Bob, to whine about such a small thing in the face of such a big challenge is kinda pathetic.

[EagerForTruth]

perhaps that issue is small yes, but bob I believe is trying to draw a line in the sand against a government he feels is eroding his freedom - as I said I look at society in general as the compromise between "freedom" -which in it's extreme unqualified form is also complete anarchy and every being does as they like without being responsible to each other- and compromise between all people for the prevention of destructive individuals and organizations as well as agreed upon systems and ideas by which we better our society for all. obviously a compromise fraught with dilemmas, difficult choices, and mistakes we grow from, but one that is ultimately necessary for society to be maintained

[bobevenson]

On Jan. 1, 2014, it will be lights out for standard incandescent 60- and 40-watt light bulbs. In order to comply with efficiency standards outlined in the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law by President George Bush in 2007, it will be illegal to manufacture or import them after Dec. 31.

I'm not positive but I thought I heard that they had changed their mind on this. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Anyway, the point of the law was to make a contribution to addressing climate change, which could be the leading challenge of this century. Honestly Bob, to whine about such a small thing in the face of such a big challenge is kinda pathetic.

You're the one who's pathetic regarding freedom, my friend. For your information, 100-watt and 75-watt bulbs haven't been available for quite some time. On Jan. 1, 2014, it became illegal to manufacture, import or distribute 60-watt bulbs, but of course that kind of government tyranny means nothing to you in your delusion that lightbulbs are going to have an effect on something besides freedom of choice.

[Felasco]

Can anyone tell me why I'm replying to a crackpot? Ah, I see now, I'm a crackpot too!

[bobevenson]

You can attack me, but not my arguments.

[EagerForTruth]

As for your argument Bob, i already told you it's invalid, but here if you dont believe me, are the two specific laws that the U.S. Congress is empowered to make by the constitution that cover this lightbulb issue...it is a necesary and proper law for regulating commerce between the states. You can say you hate it, but you can't say it's unconstitutional

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[bobevenson]

As for your argument Bob, i already told you it's invalid, but here if you dont believe me, are the two specific laws that the U.S. Congress is empowered to make by the constitution that cover this lightbulb issue...it is a necesary and proper law for regulating commerce between the states. You can say you hate it, but you can't say it's unconstitutional

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Federal government can shove any lightbulb laws up its ass, and I don't mean the Democratic donkey!

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[EagerForTruth]

i know - but your not thinking legally, the states regulate their own commerce, the government regulates commerce between states - any given state i suppose could keep them legal - but then they would have to be produced, supplied and vended to users from raw materials through to installing all within the same state and could not be sold in other states. Theoretically possible, but economically viable for a business practice, not at all.

Also, I've never understood why so many people focus on the bill of rights, or other amendments for that matter so defensively that they over interpret them. Amendments like laws are still products of the societal issues of when they are passed.
On one hand some at this point are obsolete (or at least i hope they would be even if they weren't there)
for example 3 - our military structure is such that the idea of soldiers using civilian housing is rediculous

13, 14, and 15 - which gave african americans freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote
19 - womens right to vote - this group i really hope we wouldn't need because the only reason for their inclusion was that some states wouldn't permit it - state rights isn't always a benefit
2 - personally i don't feat either invasion or tyranny , so i'd get rid of that too, but gun rights is a whole other issue

but the two powers in the original formulation still put this firmly in congress' hands. As for the whole state right amendments those were adopted along with the constitution itself, and indeed were written really only for the purpose of making sure just a couple of the original colonies would sign the document. At the time the concept of a nation of the united states was rather theoretical at best and the political reality was all the states were still jostling for power, not to mention each had it's own governor and legislature that was trying to protect as much of their clout and influence as possible. Politics being what it is, i'm pretty sure it wasn't for altruistic reasons, it was to ensure their states could govern in a way that was most advantageous to each state, with a pretty blatant us first attitude.

Today i would hope the concept of states rights is exactly that - to conduct their own affairs, but even now sometimes it's not so, states will pass laws that intentionally change economic or legal conditions in ways that benefit themselves directly at another states expense. I don't think states should be doing that or that as a nation we should consider protecting that ability a legal issue anymore. Theoretically for me, the division between federal, state, and local at this point is more a method of distributing responsibilities and jurisdictions mostly for administrative and beaurocratic reasons. One congress certainly couldn't begin to consider that kind of legal responsibility. Nor only 1 legislature per state. By delegating the right way, each level has control over the issues that affect it's respective zone - again ideally but in practice unfortunately not, in such a way that is either neutral or cooperative to the neighbors. In practice politicians for their own gain, will pursue locally beneficial policies that harm their neighboring areas. Still again in the case of this lightbulb thing - i can't see any angle where it's not both within Congress vested powers, and appropriate to do so.