CFL vs Incandescent

[weilke]

Regardless, it's not even a slight stretch of the term "interstate commerce." It's a reasonable interpretation of the term.

Sure it is a stretch. It is a stretch the supreme court created over time.

 

[Clark1961]

Shrug.

I'm sure you can back up your position with something like reasoning.

Why should I when you can't?

As I said, produced in Texas and consumed in Texas is intrastate. No other reason needed. Of course you'll continue to overlook that like any other liar arguing their position.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Why should I when you can't?

As I said, produced in Texas and consumed in Texas is intrastate. No other reason needed. Of course you'll continue to overlook that like any other liar arguing their position.

The electric isn't produced exclusively in Texas, nor is the electric used exclusively in Texas, and it's the electric use that's being regulated. Haven't you read the law?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Sure it is a stretch. It is a stretch the supreme court created over time.

How is it a stretch? Affects interstate commerce = interstate commerce. Seems pretty clear to me.

But, I don't approach the law looking to get a particular result, either. It says what it says.

 

[Clark1961]

The electric isn't produced exclusively in Texas, nor is the electric used exclusively in Texas, and it's the electric use that's being regulated. Haven't you read the law?

Prove that the electricity isn't generated and used in Texas for the production of a particular item. You can't if the factory contracts with a Texas generator for power.

Don't you have an ounce of common sense?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Prove that the electricity isn't generated and used in Texas for the production of a particular item. You can't if the factory contracts with a Texas generator for power.

Don't you have an ounce of common sense?

First, I'll ask the question again: "Haven't you read the law?" It's 42 USC 6295, if you're interested. You'll see that it's electric use that's regulated.

Second, did you miss where the Wallow fire in Arizona is threatening the electricity supply for Texas? What that means is that, somewhere in Texas right now, a light bulb is using electricity that has come from Arizona, gone through New Mexico, and ended up in Texas.

Sure sounds like interstate commerce to me. Don't you have an ounce of common sense?

http://www.epelectric.com/about-el-...-wildfires-threaten-key-epe-transmission-line

 

[mikea]

I've started buying R30 LED lamps instead of CFLs for the recessed cans that are all over my house. The LEDs don't take 5 minutes to get brighter than a candle which was my chief objection to the CFLs but right now the LEDs cost $35 each compared to about $3 for a CFL. I'm hoping they last a long time.

LEDs? They should last like 20 years, right? We should live so long.

 

[weilke]

How is it a stretch? Affects interstate commerce = interstate commerce. Seems pretty clear to me.

Crosses state line --> interstate commerce
Does not cross state line --> domestic commerce

But, I don't approach the law looking to get a particular result, either. It says what it says.

This is what the law says:

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

How we got from that to what we have now is sure interesting.

 

[Bob Noel]

The electric isn't produced exclusively in Texas, nor is the electric used exclusively in Texas, and it's the electric use that's being regulated. Haven't you read the law?

um, iirc, Texas has it's own power grid. At least that's what I think I remember from a recent Modern Marvels episode.

So, if we assume the miracle that I actually remembered correctly, wouldn't it be more than a little stretch to regulate purely intrastate electric use under an interstate commerce clause?

 

[Gary F]

I'm not sure how the regulation of lightbulbs and power consumption isn't interstate commerce, even under the "purest" concept of the term....

I disagree that it should be considered interstate commerce. It is if you buy the twisted logic of Wickard v. Filburn which was a power grab by the Supreme Court. I just realized that having sex can be interstate commerce if it results in procreation. How can growing wheat for personal consumption be considered interstate commerce if making babies is not? Offspring will be consumers and eventually become social security recipients.

We are about to learn if the federal government can force us to buy insurance. If this is upheld then they can eventually force us to buy CLF light bulbs and hybrid cars or anything else. I can't wait for a cash for flying clunkers program where we trade in Lycoming powered airplanes for solar powered blimps.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

 

[Clark1961]

First, I'll ask the question again: "Haven't you read the law?" It's 42 USC 6295, if you're interested. You'll see that it's electric use that's regulated.

Second, did you miss where the Wallow fire in Arizona is threatening the electricity supply for Texas? What that means is that, somewhere in Texas right now, a light bulb is using electricity that has come from Arizona, gone through New Mexico, and ended up in Texas.

Sure sounds like interstate commerce to me. Don't you have an ounce of common sense?

http://www.epelectric.com/about-el-...-wildfires-threaten-key-epe-transmission-line

You are free to ignore the circumstances I specified. I understand you have to do that to support you position. Have fun playing your little game! I'm sure you're always right in your world and there are no other possible worlds. That's why the law is always black and white and no interpretations are needed. Right?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

um, iirc, Texas has it's own power grid. At least that's what I think I remember from a recent Modern Marvels episode.

So, if we assume the miracle that I actually remembered correctly, wouldn't it be more than a little stretch to regulate purely intrastate electric use under an interstate commerce clause?

They do indeed, but it only covers a part of Texas (the majority, something like 75% of both territory and populace). But, the remainder is served by electric coming from both Texas and elsewhere (again, the Arizona wildfires are a pretty good example).

So, even under the most restrictive interpretation of the ICC, you've still got interstate commerce.

But, under the ICC as it's actually been interpreted/applied over the last 80-90 years, even if Texas' electricity were produced solely in the state, you've still got an interstate commerce issue. The case is Wickard v. Fillburn (that might not be spelled 100% correctly), dealing with wheat.

You don't have to like it, but it's not unreasonable to say that something that affects interstate commerce is open to regulation under the ICC. There are better arguments to make against it than "that's not a reasonable interpretation of the words!"

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Crosses state line --> interstate commerce
Does not cross state line --> domestic commerce



This is what the law says:

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

How we got from that to what we have now is sure interesting.

Sure, but how is it unreasonable to say, paraphrased, "if something affects interstate commerce, it's open to regulation?"

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

You are free to ignore the circumstances I specified. I understand you have to do that to support you position. Have fun playing your little game! I'm sure you're always right in your world and there are no other possible worlds. That's why the law is always black and white and no interpretations are needed. Right?

In this case, it's as black and white as it gets. Seriously. It doesn't get much clearer.

You don't have to like the law, but claiming it's unconstitutional ain't the right path to take to attack/repeal/void it.

 

[weilke]

I disagree that it should be considered interstate commerce. It is if you buy the twisted logic of Wickard v. Filburn which was a power grab by the Supreme Court. I just realized that having sex can be interstate commerce if it results in procreation. How can growing wheat for personal consumption be considered interstate commerce if making babies is not? Offspring will be consumers and eventually become social security recipients.

Sex is not covered by the commerce clause, it is covered by the 'right to privacy', what amendment was that again ?

We are about to learn if the federal government can force us to buy insurance. If this is upheld then they can eventually force us to buy CLF light bulbs and hybrid cars or anything else. I can't wait for a cash for flying clunkers program where we trade in Lycoming powered airplanes for solar powered blimps.

Oh, once the insurance mandate is blessed, look for other mandates early in the first Pawlenty administration:
- duck tape
- sheeting
- personal anti-terrorism kit

 

[Cap'n Jack]

As I said, produced in Texas and consumed in Texas is intrastate. No other reason needed. Of course you'll continue to overlook that like any other liar arguing their position.

Gee- that's really nice.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Sex is not covered by the commerce clause, it is covered by the 'right to privacy', what amendment was that again ?

....

The 4th Amendment gives you the right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in, say, your home. That's also known as a "right to privacy."

 

[Baron2PG]

CFL's are the new Ethanol.

Installed the CFL in recessed lighting fixtures in my FROG (Finished Room Over Garage for you non-southern types) as my kids tend to never turn off the lights. Within 6 months all 8 of them had failed and they were not cheap!

I also agree with the others on the "dim" start issue; just plain sucks.

 

[weilke]

They do indeed, but it only covers a part of Texas (the majority, something like 75% of both territory and populace). But, the remainder is served by electric coming from both Texas and elsewhere (again, the Arizona wildfires are a pretty good example).

So, even under the most restrictive interpretation of the ICC, you've still got interstate commerce.

Interstate as the relationship between a utility in one state and a generator in another state and a grid-owner are concerned. Entirely reasonable that the feds would regulate the aspect of commerce that crosses state lines. The relationship between a retail electricity customer and their utility is intra-state.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Interstate as the relationship between a utility in one state and a generator in another state and a grid-owner are concerned. Entirely reasonable that the feds would regulate the aspect of commerce that crosses state lines. The relationship between a retail electricity customer and their utility is intra-state.

If a consumer in Texas causes more electricity to be generated at, I don't know, the Navajo Power Station in Arizona, that is commerce between the states. There's just not any way around that, and for the Feds to say "we're going to take steps to reduce electric consumption so that the NPS doesn't burn as much coal because of that consumer in Texas, and part of that involves mandating that light bulbs be more efficient," that's a valid exercise of the ICC power.

This is a matter of whether the policy is good or bad, rather than of constitutionality.

 

[weilke]

Sure, but how is it unreasonable to say, paraphrased, "if something affects interstate commerce, it's open to regulation?"

It is unreasonable because it leaves no limits to the powers of the federal goverment in the economy when the folks who wrote that document clearly laid out that they wished to have such limits in place.

Let's say there is a state that has NO connection to an interstate power grid, e.g. Hawaii. Every electron that goes through a lightbulb on the island is pushed by a generator on the island. Their market is tiny and nobody can make a reasonable claim that usage on the island affects the electricity market on the mainland. They could mandate LED lighting for everyone, right ?

 

[weilke]

The 4th Amendment gives you the right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in, say, your home. That's also known as a "right to privacy."

At some point in the past, it gave some protection from unreasonable search and seizure, don't see any indication that it was a healthcare regulation. More something about the kings men rifling through your stuff just to harass you kind of thing.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

It is unreasonable because it leaves no limits to the powers of the federal goverment in the economy

OK, but that's not based on anything that the Constitution says.

when the folks who wrote that document clearly laid out that they wished to have such limits in place.[/quote]

Where did they say that?

Let's say there is a state that has NO connection to an interstate power grid, e.g. Hawaii. Every electron that goes through a lightbulb on the island is pushed by a generator on the island. Their market is tiny and nobody can make a reasonable claim that usage on the island affects the electricity market on the mainland. They could mandate LED lighting for everyone, right ?

No, because of the ICC, combined with the Equal Protection, Privileges & Immunities, and Due Process Clauses. Those combine to prevent a state from wholesale excluding stuff from its territory.

 

[Gary F]

Sex is not covered by the commerce clause, it is covered by the 'right to privacy', what amendment was that again ?



Oh, once the insurance mandate is blessed, look for other mandates early in the first Pawlenty administration:
- duck tape
- sheeting
- personal anti-terrorism kit

I have been unable to find the "right to privacy" anywhere in the Constitution but I am just an average citizen moron. I think this concept was just another jerry rigging of the law to suit the whims of the justices. If the light bulbs are used only in my private residence why is this not covered by a right to privacy? Judges just make things up using clever legal language. That is why so many have lost confidence in the courts.

We should just go ahead and have a coronation ceremony for Justice Kennedy. He pretty much rules the country with the help of 4 fellow justices as he has become the swing vote for the Supreme Court.

Who said I agree with Pawlenty?

 

[gismo]

LEDs? They should last like 20 years, right? We should live so long.

Baring manufacturing defects the LEDs themselves should indeed outlive me. The do degrade (dim) over time but it should take 10,000-20,000 hrs of operation to lose 30%. But the electronics driving the LEDs might not last as long, especially in the heat generated by the LEDs.

 

[Gary F]

Baring manufacturing defects the LEDs themselves should indeed outlive me. The do degrade (dim) over time but it should take 10,000-20,000 hrs of operation to lose 30%. But the electronics driving the LEDs might not last as long, especially in the heat generated by the LEDs.

All the high intensity LEDs I have seen produce light that is shifted too much toward the blue end of the spectrum to use as household lighting. I want something closer to sunlight. When that happens and the cost comes down I might buy a few.

 

[Everskyward]

I didn't realize people put so much thought into lighting.

 

[Anthony]

I didn't realize people put so much thought into lighting.

Some of us do it for our jobs. Lighting upgrades can be a huge energy saver for corporate clients, and energy management/conservation is one of the most popular services my company provides. LED technology certainly looks like the future, and once they get the cost down and the lighting to look more natural, it will be the way to go. Less heat, less electric demand, longer service life, less maintenance costs. Sure winner.

 

[weilke]

I have been unable to find the "right to privacy" anywhere in the Constitution but I am just an average citizen moron.

You are certainly an above average moron . It's not in there.

Who said I agree with Pawlenty?

I only put Pawlenty in there because *random-white-middle-aged-somewhat-accomplished-male-nominated-by-the-republican-party* is too long of a word.

Presidential candidates of the opposing side like to decry the abuses of power of the sitting president just to claim even more expansive uses of that power the moment they are in office. To wit: the war powers act.

That is why I believe that whoever will succeed the current president in 2012 will gleefully use the new and improved hammer of the commerce clause to make us buy stuff that benefits his campaign contributors. It is the party of petro products and military hardware. As they can't force us to buy 30mm ammo, it'll be a barrel of heating oil or maybe duck-tape.

 

[Doggtyred]

How about lightbulbs made in Texas and sold in Texas ?

Are they interstate because electrons flow through them that crossed a stateline ?

The majority of Texas is powered by it's own in-state grid. It's called ERCOT.

 

[ScottM]

You are certainly an above average moron . It's not in there.

The right to privacy is contained in the Bill of Rights.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."[/SIZE][/FONT]

Last I check the BoR is part of the US Constitution so if Gary F is looking and does not see it he is obviously not understanding what it is he is reading.

 

[Gary F]

The right to privacy is contained in the Bill of Rights.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html



Last I check the BoR is part of the US Constitution so if Gary F is looking and does not see it he is obviously not understanding what it is he is reading.

I stand by my assertion that the word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. Privacy and interstate commerce are malleable concepts and have been applied selectively to suit various agendas.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I stand by my assertion that the word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. Privacy and interstate commerce are malleable concepts and have been applied selectively to suit various agendas.

Ehhhh...I disagree (predictably, I suppose). "Privacy" is pretty clearly a part, if not at the heart, of the Fourth Amendment. I don't see how that's disputable. But, you're right in that the 4th Amendment is malleable - it's based on a reasonability standard, which will always be subjective.

"Interstate commerce," again, I think is pretty clear-cut. I fail to see how, if you have something that affects interstate commerce, it can be said that Congress can't regulate it under the clause giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's kind of like me saying "I''ll pay you $100 to paint my house, and we've definitely agreed that I'm going to pay you $100, and no way would I never not pay you this $100 that we've agreed to" and then only handing you $80 and saying "I never said I wouldn't keep $20 and still say I was giving you $100." I just don't see how that's an unreasonable interpretation, unless we define unreasonable as "I don't like it, so it's thus unreasonable." Which, of course, is exactly what happens on a regular basis with discussions between: 1) children and their parents; and 2) citizens and their governments.

As I alluded to above, there are two ways of looking at the Constitution. You can read the Constitution and let it tell you were you can and can't go. Or, you can decide where you're going to go, and then make the Constitution allow you to go there.

It's always pretty obvious who adopts what approach.

 

[ScottM]

I stand by my assertion that the word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. Privacy and interstate commerce are malleable concepts and have been applied selectively to suit various agendas.

The word "freedom" does not appear in any of the articles of the US Constitution. I guess using your geometric logic, freedom is not a right guaranteed to us either.

 

[Gary F]

Ehhhh...I disagree (predictably, I suppose). "Privacy" is pretty clearly a part, if not at the heart, of the Fourth Amendment. I don't see how that's disputable. But, you're right in that the 4th Amendment is malleable - it's based on a reasonability standard, which will always be subjective.

"Interstate commerce," again, I think is pretty clear-cut. I fail to see how, if you have something that affects interstate commerce, it can be said that Congress can't regulate it under the clause giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's kind of like me saying "I''ll pay you $100 to paint my house, and we've definitely agreed that I'm going to pay you $100, and no way would I never not pay you this $100 that we've agreed to" and then only handing you $80 and saying "I never said I wouldn't keep $20 and still say I was giving you $100." I just don't see how that's an unreasonable interpretation, unless we define unreasonable as "I don't like it, so it's thus unreasonable." Which, of course, is exactly what happens on a regular basis with discussions between: 1) children and their parents; and 2) citizens and their governments.

As I alluded to above, there are two ways of looking at the Constitution. You can read the Constitution and let it tell you were you can and can't go. Or, you can decide where you're going to go, and then make the Constitution allow you to go there.

It's always pretty obvious who adopts what approach.

I respectively disagree. The Wickard v. Filburn decision was ridiculous. If you buy this then the government has unlimited power to regulate almost any activity. I am certain that was not the intent.

Several concepts have been corrupted since the Constitution was written. I am convinced that the writers of the Constitution would not consider the treatment of Pfc Manning to be cruel and unusual. http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-calls-military-treatment-accused-wikileaks-supporter-pfc-manning-cruel-and-un

This is more like what they had in mind when they wrote the 8th amendment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQrisuRj22Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMP72Q-TW_w

The 5th and 6th amendments:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu0AA_NtZsk&feature=related

The 1st amendment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V0-qM-lL4Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZpSoaQ1Wfw

I think you can better a understanding the origin of many of the elements of the Constitution by watching The Tudors than attending law school.

 

[Bob Noel]

"Interstate commerce," again, I think is pretty clear-cut. I fail to see how, if you have something that affects interstate commerce, it can be said that Congress can't regulate it under the clause giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Something that affects interstate commerce is not necessarily interstate commerce, right?

Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, right?

Where is the authority to regulate something that affects interstate commerce but is not actually interstate commerce? Where is the threshold of affect on interstate commerce that would expose some hypothetical something to regulation?

 

[Gary F]

The word "freedom" does not appear in any of the articles of the US Constitution. I guess using your geometric logic, freedom is not a right guaranteed to us either.

It isn't, at least when it comes to choosing a light bulb.

 

[weilke]

I have a couple of rooms with recessed can lights on dimmers. Went to Lowes today for some lamps:

6-pack of 65W BR30 reflector lamps: $16.98 ($2.83ea)

4-pack of 15W dimmable CFLs in BR30 form-factor: $41.78 sale! ($10.44ea)

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Something that affects interstate commerce is not necessarily interstate commerce, right?

Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, right?

Where is the authority to regulate something that affects interstate commerce but is not actually interstate commerce? Where is the threshold of affect on interstate commerce that would expose some hypothetical something to regulation?

Let's play the hypothetical game.

I open a factory in Rhode Island. It burns fish guts all day long, and sells the ashes only to people within Rhode Island. But, the smoke blows across the border into Massachussetts, and fills your home with nice tasty fish-gut smoke. Maybe it gives you a delicious case of AIDS or something.

Massachussetts can't do a single thing about it, because the factory is in Rhode Island. Rhode Island won't do anything about it, because it's good money for Rhode Island.

Under what you're getting at, you're screwed. The Federal government would not be able to mandate the installation of something like a filter on the smoke stack, because there's no "interstate commerce," as you seem to be defining the word.

But, fortunately for you, that's not what the situation is. That factory affects interstate commerce, in one way or another, so the Feds tell the owners to either install a filter or pay to remediate your property and hold you harmless.

And that's how it works. That's why we have the interstate commerce clause, because before it existed, under the Articles of Confederation, the "United States" was mass pandemonium.

The reductio ad absurdum of "well, everything is interstate commerce" is simply...absurd. Not everything is interstate commerce; in fact, the incredibly overwhelming majority of things are not interstate commerce.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I respectively disagree. The Wickard v. Filburn decision was ridiculous. If you buy this then the government has unlimited power to regulate almost any activity. I am certain that was not the intent.

Have you actually read Fillburn? It is far more complicated than "he was growing wheat for his own consumption, and that ain't interstate commerce, dadgumit."

The intent was expressed in what was written in the Constitution. If there had been another intent, it would have been written differently.

Several concepts have been corrupted since the Constitution was written. I am convinced that the writers of the Constitution would not consider the treatment of Pfc Manning to be cruel and unusual. http://www.aclu.org/national-securi...-wikileaks-supporter-pfc-manning-cruel-and-un

This is more like what they had in mind when they wrote the 8th amendment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQrisuRj22Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMP72Q-TW_w

They would have been comfortable with a police officer beating a confession out of a suspect, as well. This is why amendments like the 4th and the 8th were written in a subjective fashion.

The 5th and 6th amendments:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu0AA_NtZsk&feature=related

The 5th and 6th Amendments are pretty clear. There ain't much arguing what they require.

The 1st amendment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V0-qM-lL4Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZpSoaQ1Wfw

Same for the 1st.

I think you can better a understanding the origin of many of the elements of the Constitution by watching The Tudors than attending law school.

For sure. You can point to England ~1450-1688 for the vast majority of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.