CFL vs Incandescent

Obi Heed Kenobi said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are right, most commerce is not interstate commerce. But as it turns out, anything CAN become interstate commerce the moment the federal goverment wants to insert itself into the transaction.
 
weilke said:
You are right, most commerce is not interstate commerce. But as it turns out, anything CAN become interstate commerce the moment the federal goverment wants to insert itself into the transaction.
Click to expand...

Not at all. This is quite literally a made up concern.

And, most commerce is interstate commerce. Most events in our lives, in the United States, however, are not commerce.
 
The last I checked, the word privacy is not used anywhere in the BoR.

There is no explicit right to privacy. It's only inferred by some interpretations.
 
Doggtyred said:
The last I checked, the word privacy is not used anywhere in the BoR.

There is no explicit right to privacy. It's only inferred by some interpretations.
Click to expand...

If I were to say, "I will serve you hot dogs at noon," would you call it something other than lunch?
 
Maybe we could have "light bulb runners" like there were "rum runners" during Prohibition.

A few family members made some decent money transporting alcohol back then, I've heard.

I can see it now... the FBI's Most Wanted list will include evil light bulb smugglers.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Not at all. This is quite literally a made up concern.
Click to expand...

It's not a made up concern.

Private sector healthcare traditionally has been
- delivered by providers licensed by individual states
- based on contracts under state law between patient and doctor
- paid for by insurers regulated by individual state insurance commissioners
- paid for by employers regulated by individual state insurance laws (scope of coverage etc.)

(The feds of course have their finger in the pie through the goverment programs. But some practices simply dont take medicare, railroad, medicaid and tricare and as such are not subject to the federal price fixing schemes and most of their bizarre regulations. The only thing federal in those practices is the CMS-1500 form or X-12 file transfer protocol).

Now, with the new and improved commerce clause, the feds insert themselves into that intra-state portion of healthcare delivery and financing. They even reach down to the level of the individual and tell him what level of intra-state health insurance to buy.

I am looking forward to the federalization of the legal system. Set rates for specified services, record keeping requirements, making priviledged legal records accessible to private goverment audit contractors etc. It affects interstate commerce you know.....:loco:.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
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.
Click to expand...



Your response doesn't actually answer my question regarding the threshold or stopping criteria for application of interstate commerce regulation. Your response reminds me of sexual harassment training with the instructor trying to show where the line is by showing cases of egregious behavior where even the dullest mind would know the behavior was unacceptable. (btw your hypothetical case would be more like treating a case of one employee hitting another as a case of sexual harassment.)

And in your specific hypothetical case, it would appear that "they" hunt around for some hammer in which to get a desired result. If there is a problem in one state than adversely impacts another, then perhaps "they" should find a solution. But to call it interstate commerce when there isn't any interstate commerce is itself absurd.

Bottomline: I chafe at the concept of misapplication of authority. The ends do not justify the means (or whatever other cliche you to apply). You might support abortion, you might not, but to charge anti-abortions under anti-racketeering laws is absurd. To regulate something under the interstate commerce authority because it might have some indirect impact on interstate commerce is absurd. I support the desired goal (reducing electrical usage nationwide) but find the means being used ludicrous.
 
weilke said:
It's not a made up concern.

Private sector healthcare traditionally has been
- delivered by providers licensed by individual states
- based on contracts under state law between patient and doctor
- paid for by insurers regulated by individual state insurance commissioners
- paid for by employers regulated by individual state insurance laws (scope of coverage etc.)
Click to expand...

Only if you completely ignore all of the clearly interstate components of the healthcare system.

This is what I was getting at when I mentioned that some people start with a predetermined result in mind and will do anything to keep it intact.

(The feds of course have their finger in the pie through the goverment programs. But some practices simply dont take medicare, railroad, medicaid and tricare and as such are not subject to the federal price fixing schemes and most of their bizarre regulations. The only thing federal in those practices is the CMS-1500 form or X-12 file transfer protocol).

Now, with the new and improved commerce clause, the feds insert themselves into that intra-state portion of healthcare delivery and financing. They even reach down to the level of the individual and tell him what level of intra-state health insurance to buy.

I am looking forward to the federalization of the legal system. Set rates for specified services, record keeping requirements, making priviledged legal records accessible to private goverment audit contractors etc. It affects interstate commerce you know.....:loco:.
Click to expand...

It's already happened, to an extent.
 
Bob Noel said:
Your response doesn't actually answer my question regarding the threshold or stopping criteria for application of interstate commerce regulation. Your response reminds me of sexual harassment training with the instructor trying to show where the line is by showing cases of egregious behavior where even the dullest mind would know the behavior was unacceptable. (btw your hypothetical case would be more like treating a case of one employee hitting another as a case of sexual harassment.)
Click to expand...

How so?

You don't have to like it, but sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending things aren't what they are just makes you foolish.

And in your specific hypothetical case, it would appear that "they" hunt around for some hammer in which to get a desired result. If there is a problem in one state than adversely impacts another, then perhaps "they" should find a solution. But to call it interstate commerce when there isn't any interstate commerce is itself absurd.
Click to expand...

I quite literally have no idea of what you mean.

Bottomline: I chafe at the concept of misapplication of authority. The ends do not justify the means (or whatever other cliche you to apply). You might support abortion, you might not, but to charge anti-abortions under anti-racketeering laws is absurd. To regulate something under the interstate commerce authority because it might have some indirect impact on interstate commerce is absurd. I support the desired goal (reducing electrical usage nationwide) but find the means being used ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Nobody has said anything about indirect impacts.
 
It is interesting that the Constitution is filled with very specific limitations on the power of government but we are asked to believe that the commerce clause give the state Carte Blanche to regulate almost every conceivable economic transaction. If it uses electricity or is sold in more than one state (on in some cases one state only) then the government has total authority. I believe that the intent was only to regulate those activities which are primarily or exclusively interstate transactions. Conceptually this makes more sense but if somebody wants to use the Constitution to impose a Soviet style centralized economy the broad interpretation will do nicely.
 
Last edited:
Gary F said:
It is interesting that the Constitution is filled with very specific limitations on the power of government but we are asked to believe that the commerce clause give the state Carte Blanche to regulate almost every conceivable economic transaction. If it uses electricity or is sold in more than one state (on in some cases one state only) then the government has total authority. I believe that the intent was only to regulate those activities which are primarily or exclusively interstate transactions. Conceptually this makes more sense but if somebody wants to use the Constitution to impose a Soviet style centralized economy it will do nicely.
Click to expand...

All of the limitations on the power of the Federal government, with the exception of some very narrow ones, are pretty vague....
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
All of the limitations on the power of the Federal government, with the exception of some very narrow ones, are pretty vague....
Click to expand...
Apparently other than on "privacy" whatever that means. Why did they bother to write the Constitution other than to avoid the oppression of excessive government power?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
All of the limitations on the power of the Federal government, with the exception of some very narrow ones, are pretty vague....
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear, just ignored.

Although it can be argued that Federal supremacy was one result of the Civil War.
 
ScottM said:
Really! What do you call the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments then? Those explicitly call out ights of privacy.
Click to expand...

They all describe particular intrusions of the goverment against into the individuals private sphere. If the writers had intended to create a specifically protected right to privacy beyond that, they could have done so, but they didn't.

That said, I believe that the protection of a womans right to make her own healthcare decisions is good law, I just think that the way we got to this law is a bad one.
 
ScottM said:
Really! What do you call the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments then? Those explicitly call out ights of privacy.
Click to expand...

Did you mean lights? And would those be CFL or incandescent? :D
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Only if you completely ignore all of the clearly interstate components of the healthcare system.
Click to expand...

What would be the interstate components of a transaction like yesterday:

Lets call him 'Jose', a local laborer comes into the office with a medical problem. He is seen by the doc, his problem is attended to and on the way out he pays the receptionist in cash from a bundle of wrinkled small denomitation bills.

What interstate commerce has taken place here ? We didn't use the telephone or the interwebs for his care and no insurance claim or prescription has been generated.

(this is an actual example, not some wild hypothetical)

It's already happened, to an extent.
Click to expand...

Where outside of accounting and tax law ?

Does the goverment automatically consider you a contractor to the federal goverment who has to abide by their price controls while providing services to individuals within your state ?
 
EppyGA said:
Did you mean lights? And would those be CFL or incandescent? :D
Click to expand...

I believe our Founding Fathers gave their life for the right to incandescents. We can still burn candles if we want to, right? ;)
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well, I guess I'll go back to Spin Zone now. :lol:
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
[snipperoo]

I quite literally have no idea of what you mean.



Nobody has said anything about indirect impacts.
Click to expand...

I guess "affects interstate commerce" from your post #273 isn't an indirect impact. An interesting distinction.

in any case, I'll ask my question again, but rephrasing it and backing up in order to establish context...

What is interstate commerce? And what is not interstate commerce?

Is it reasonable to say that commerce that isn't among the states isn't interstate commerce?
 
dmccormack said:
It's pretty clear, just ignored.

Although it can be argued that Federal supremacy was one result of the Civil War.
Click to expand...

That amendment itself is certainly clear (anything not given to the Feds is reserved for the states/people), but it's contingent on other provisions that are vague - which is why I say that it's not clear.

In other words, because it's not clear what the Feds can do, it's therefore unclear what's reserved.
 
weilke said:
What would be the interstate components of a transaction like yesterday:

Lets call him 'Jose', a local laborer comes into the office with a medical problem. He is seen by the doc, his problem is attended to and on the way out he pays the receptionist in cash from a bundle of wrinkled small denomitation bills.

What interstate commerce has taken place here ? We didn't use the telephone or the interwebs for his care and no insurance claim or prescription has been generated.

(this is an actual example, not some wild hypothetical)
Click to expand...

There are all kinds of implications for interstate commerce in that facially simple transaction. Everything from materials used, to standards of care, to malpractice.

Transactions don't happen in a vacuum.

Keep in mind that simply because an effect on interstate commerce is "small" doesn't mean that it is either indirect or incidental.

Where outside of accounting and tax law ?
Click to expand...

Real estate, intellectual property, corporate law; the list goes on and on. If you're an attorney, chances are you do at least one thing on a daily basis that implicates interstate commerce directly. I know I do.

Does the goverment automatically consider you a contractor to the federal goverment who has to abide by their price controls while providing services to individuals within your state ?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean.
 
Bob Noel said:
I guess "affects interstate commerce" from your post #273 isn't an indirect impact. An interesting distinction.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned above: "small" does not mean "indirect."

In case I haven't been clear (I don't think I have been on this point), transactions having an incidental impact on/relationship to interstate commerce aren't of necessity open for regulation under the ICC.

For example, let's say I murder someone in my car on I-70 in Colorado, that I picked up hitch-hiking in Colorado, while I'm travelling from Kansas to Utah. I'm going to be subject to Colorado law; the Feds can't swoop in and make a "murder while in interstate commerce" law, the relationship is just too incidental.

But, say I kidnapped the person in Kansas, and brought them across state lines to Colorado. Then the Feds can step in.

in any case, I'll ask my question again, but rephrasing it and backing up in order to establish context...

What is interstate commerce? And what is not interstate commerce?

Is it reasonable to say that commerce that isn't among the states isn't interstate commerce?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, a fair definition of the term would be along the lines of "the flow of something between two or more states." The "something" doesn't necessarily have to be tangible.

"Commerce" isn't exclusively limited to business transactions, things involving money, etc. It certainly includes that, but the broader term is better defined as an "exchange of something."

Again, I'll emphasize it for the record: small impact does not mean incidental or indirect. With that smoke example I gave you, that's clearly sending something from State 1 into State 2; it's small, perhaps even invisible at times, but interstate commerce it remains, even under the most restrictive definition of the term (which could reasonably be far more restrictive than what I set forth in the above paragraphs).
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Again, I'll emphasize it for the record: small impact does not mean incidental or indirect. With that smoke example I gave you, that's clearly sending something from State 1 into State 2; it's small, perhaps even invisible at times, but interstate commerce it remains, even under the most restrictive definition of the term (which could reasonably be far more restrictive than what I set forth in the above paragraphs).
Click to expand...

You brought up this example of interstate commerce in which clearly two parties located in separate states have a grievance that crosses state lines in its scope. Yes, no question, it deals with interstate commerce. Yet it has nothing to do with issues of intra-state commerce like the regulation of healthcare or the relationship between myself as an individual purchasing retail electricity from my utility.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
There are all kinds of implications for interstate commerce in that facially simple transaction. Everything from materials used, to standards of care, to malpractice.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the cotton swab used being imported from china creates federal involvement ? I would call that a prime example of 'incidental'.

'Standards of care' are a local issue, they are measured relative to the standard of care in that particular community. From having practiced at a number of locations accross the US I can assure you that the standard of care can be very different depending on the location.

Malpractice is a local issue decided by local courts. Unless you are dealing with federal healthcare center patients, I cant remember many medmal cases that have ever seen the federal courts.

Transactions don't happen in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

I never claimed vacuum, but some transactions just remain entirely within a state with any federal implications being entirely incidental, e.g. the fact that US dollar bills were printed by an out of state mint etc.

Keep in mind that simply because an effect on interstate commerce is "small" doesn't mean that it is either indirect or incidental.
Click to expand...

In this case the effect is not small, it is nonexistent. I am 60 driving miles from the next state line, the patient wouldn't have gotten his care in a different state.

Real estate, intellectual property, corporate law; the list goes on and on. If you're an attorney, chances are you do at least one thing on a daily basis that implicates interstate commerce directly. I know I do.
Click to expand...

Do the feds set your rates ? Tell you what color ink to use on the bill you send to your client ?

I dont dispute that attorneys deal with interstate matters, I dispute that the feds micromanage the way you run your practice.


I'm not sure what you mean.
Click to expand...

Just a laundry list of the things where the feds micromanage the care of patients and the operation of medical practices.
 
Last edited:
I'm just going to burn enough CFLs to use the same electricity as incans. Then the Feds still don't win. Since it's not about lights, but electricity usage.
 
knock it off, will ya? All this CFL talk and I just had two go out in my bathroom last night! You jinxed me!
 
If on public sewer, just crush em and flush em.
 
denverpilot said:
Maybe we could have "light bulb runners" like there were "rum runners" during Prohibition.

A few family members made some decent money transporting alcohol back then, I've heard.

I can see it now... the FBI's Most Wanted list will include evil light bulb smugglers.
Click to expand...

Yep. Are there still people smuggling non-low-flow toilets in from Canada?
 
ebacon said:
By the van full.
Click to expand...

Toilets being smuggled due to the low flow requirement here? Does the gov't realize it takes three flushes with these new toilets as opposed to one? So your using 2.5 times the water normally needed?
 
Anthony said:
Toilets being smuggled due to the low flow requirement here? Does the gov't realize it takes three flushes with these new toilets as opposed to one? So your using 2.5 times the water normally needed?
Click to expand...

I always knew I just couldn't measure up to the average American! :yikes: :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top