U.S. Tyranny Marches On!

[Felasco]

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/how-energy-inde ... ight-bulbs

[bobevenson]

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.

You're obviously not from the USA, so anything you say is meaningless. For your information, no state can allow anybody to make, distribute or sell incandescent lightbulbs. Other countries don't have a Bill of Rights because they're used to being oppressed by their government, and don't have the balls to change it.

[EagerForTruth]

Umm, i most definately am from the USA Had quite a nice dose of education in American history. For the exact law if worded that way I still am thinking legally - actually I hadn't even gone past my first argument of what is commonly referred to as the "elastic" clause, and in fact that still comes into play here, just through another layer of lawmaking. No state has an independant energy system, therefore any issue regarding that energy system is handled by the U.S. Department of Energy and by extension the EPA. That means the distribution of electricity DOES fall under powers vested to Congress and not the states. In 2001, a law (or technically an executive order) was passed giving the federal government power over any law that would significantly affect energy supply and distribution. The final one you are railing against has also passed because the energy consumption requirement of the new bulbs is only a fraction of the percent of regular bulbs, therefore it is allowed because allowing the bulbs draws much more power from the energy supply.

Now that I have the full process outlined for you, I really do think you are using a rather vague amendment (9 and 10) against another rather vague description of vested power in Congress (regulate interstate commerce along with the elastic clause) to oppose a law that I can't understand why anyone would. Additionally the wording in both areas of the constitution make the actual jurisdiction of this one pretty argueable to say the least. Additionally in actual practice of application between federal and state law when there is unclear authority and conflicting legal standpoints, the actual governmental and legal conflict has been very strongly established through most of the countries history that the federal authority supersedes the state. To the point i suppose you notice, that there really is no question - the federal government has both constitutional authority and legal authority. That any citizen or even state might disagree does not affect the way powers and laws are interpreted and administered by the government.

As for the apparent patriotic support of the bill of rights as a protection against oppression, i suppose by claiming them without real reason in this case you think you're trying to use them to be patriotic - in order to avoid "oppression" both rather blindly and invalidly - which I would then say though we do in US have a great basic governmental form including protections for our citizens, our often blind and overzealous patriotism leads to a lot of citizens to overzealously and for no reason other than assertion of independence turn their patriotism against our own government and it's policies....I can't help but wonder what state you live in....or for that matter which side of the political spectrum you relate to more closely.

[bobevenson]

Amendments 9 and 10 to the U.S. Constitution are not vague at all, and in fact, are very concrete. It's not the function of government to tell people how much energy they can use. That is something that should be left to the free market. Unfortunately, people like you think it's OK for the government to dictate how everybody should live. You probably would agree with government laws that say you must join a health club, cannot buy a large soft drink (which actually is the law in New York City) and other bizarre intrusions into our lives. I pray to God that people like you don't become the majority, or America might as well ship the Statue of Liberty back to decadent France.

[EagerForTruth]

Free market? so ifi want to start a company and just put up powerlines anywhere i want to supply energy, i can? or i can start a molten lead facility that dumps into the ocean, right? If i have the money...Perhaps free market to you means that if i can buy the necessary materials, land, equipment etc. the government has no authority to stop me? By that reasoning there shouldn't be any laws against me being able to buy say...every single food producer in the country, and every infrastructure location that can reach outside the country, and then sell food for any price I want...

The existence of an economy with rules other than it has a currency is what you think of as a free market?

No market can be completely free, every since the creation of money there has been a need to create rules (i.e. laws) about how it can be used.

[bobevenson]

Free market? so ifi want to start a company and just put up powerlines anywhere i want to supply energy, i can? or i can start a molten lead facility that dumps into the ocean, right? If i have the money...Perhaps free market to you means that if i can buy the necessary materials, land, equipment etc. the government has no authority to stop me? By that reasoning there shouldn't be any laws against me being able to buy say...every single food producer in the country, and every infrastructure location that can reach outside the country, and then sell food for any price I want...

The existence of an economy with rules other than it has a currency is what you think of as a free market?

No market can be completely free, every since the creation of money there has been a need to create rules (i.e. laws) about how it can be used.

When I talk about a free market, I'm talking about economist Milton Friedman's Freedom to Choose, not usurping the rights of others. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty: laws against light bulbs and large soft drinks are crimes against humanity.

[EagerForTruth]

So how does that have any effect on the actual economic and legal system we have - he may have had ideas that have been absorbed into our current iteration, but his philosophy of it is not the reality of it. Regarding this one law at least our market has behaved according to the legal realities I've explained to you. And the sum value of our entire legal and government system says in theory and expresses quite succesfully that the federal government can and does make laws of different kinds that govern our market. The amendments u mention first - do not negate the governments to do so, they simply say anything the federal government doesn't have the power to do - and in this case it does - relegates to the states, and by no way affect any kind of personal freedoms the neither the federal OR state government claim. For my own part, I haven't really delved into economic philosophy and am trying to make no personal claims of any kind about what I believe it should be. I suppose with as simple an economic life I lead, I'm not particularly concerned about developing that at the moment myself - I know I'll be able to support myself - I know it will be rather modest and stable. That's enough for me to pursue my interests of other parts of my life. The people who are worried about money success and physical things can do that, this market works enough for my purposes.

[bobevenson]

the federal goveournment can and does make laws of different kinds that govern our market

I feel sorry for you if you believe it's OK for Federal, state and local governments to tell you what kind of lightbulbs and size of soft drinks you can buy.