A dim-bulb constitutional idea
In the good ol' days, Southern states tried to circumvent federal law for a serious, if wrong, reason: to prevent racial desegregation. Now South Carolina may be on the verge of asserting states' rights against a less consequential target: light bulbs.
Thanks to the Americans for Limited Government -- and unlimited illumination -- I learned that a state legislator in South Carolina plans to introduce a bill allowing residents of the state to continue to buy incandescent light bulbs, not the wimpy environmentally friendly kind pushed by a liberal Congress.
Advocates of the old light bulbs have an intriguing constitutional argument for defying the federal mandate. As a sympathetic conservative spokesman put it, "since the bulbs would be made entirely in South Carolina and sold in South Carolina, the federal government has no power to regulate it under the Interstate Commerce Clause."
Trouble is, this argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2005 in a case involving marijuana.
Clearly, the legislators need to be enlightened, by whatever bulb they choose, about the Constitution.
-- Michael McGough
We're talking about delusional Republicans living in the past. At the federal level, they're bringing back the good old Styrofoam cup to the House cafeteria. Why? Because Nancy Pelosi banned it and if a Democrat (which to them means un-American radical Socialist) is against it, they must be for it. Energy conservation? An obvious Commie Plot by the One World Environmentalists.
Bring back strip mining, clear cutting, and V-8 engines. In their twisted minds, God loves only the USA and would never let anything bad happen to the planet. Only a Secular Humanist, Left-Coast Elitist would think otherwise.
Posted by: thebob.bob | February 28, 2011 at 02:34 PM
The medical marijuana decision was a travesty, and sighting it as a reason to stop challenging the ever expanding encroachment of the federal government into states rights shows your bulb has burned out completely.
The 10th amendment to the Constitution:
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.
Vs. Ok first find Article I, then scroll down to Section 8, after that count down to Clause 3 and BAM! their it is the (in)famous "Commerce Clause"
The Congress shall have Power, To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.
Really "Article I, Section 8, Clause 3" is controlling over the 10th amendment? As I said travesty..
Posted by: Scott Free | February 28, 2011 at 02:39 PM
"We're talking about delusional Republicans living in the past. At the federal level, they're bringing back the good old Styrofoam cup to the House cafeteria. Why? Because Nancy Pelosi banned it and if a Democrat"
Speaking of delusional, never let the facts get in the way of a good story..
"The problem, staffers from both parties have grumbled, is that the forks break, the spoons melt and the knives don't cut much more than a soft piece of bread. And the trash cans were replaced with a bewildering array of recycling bins that few have mastered.
That's not why Lungren ended the program, though. He concluded that, in addition to costing $475,000 per year, it "also increased the House's energy consumption through the use of additional electricity for the pulping process and the increased hauling distance to the composting facility." And according to the House Inspector General, the "the program has only achieved carbon reductions equivalent to removing one car from the road each year."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/a-fork-in-the-road-for-house-c.html
Posted by: Scott Free | February 28, 2011 at 02:48 PM
Canadian federal government announced that it would ban the sale of inefficient incandescent light bulbs nation-wide by 2012 as part of a plan to cut down on emissions of greenhouse gases.
"In Quebec and British Columbia, central heating for homes is provided by the burning of natural gas, whereas electricity is primarily provided by hydroelectric or nuclear power. In such areas, heat generated by conventional electric light bulbs significantly reduces the release of greenhouse gases from the natural gas.[61] Ivanco, Karney, and Waher estimate that "If all homes in Quebec were required to switch from (incandescent) bulbs to CFLs, there would be an increase of almost 220,000 tonnes in CO2 emissions in the province, equivalent to the annual emissions from more than 40,000 automobiles."
In South Carolina? Nuclear: 52 % electricity produced in South Carolina. 2 new plants Scheduled to open 2016 70% electricity will be nuclear.
What? A blanket federal policy that achieves the exact OPPOSITE of it's intentions based purely on the differences between states/provinces, shocking...
Posted by: Scott Free | February 28, 2011 at 03:37 PM
Hey! You forgot how al gore ties into this story, his daddy and his DEMOCRAT pals were the ones trying to circumvent and fight racial integration down south back in "the good old days"
Posted by: Claude | February 28, 2011 at 04:30 PM
Typical Progressives posts. Florsecent bulbs are neither cost effective nor environmentally safe. They are considered toxic waste, having to be disposed of in a manner that uses more engery in the long run.
Progressives need to conduct scientific cost/benefit analysis prior to legislating what Progressives deem politically correct. Pure stupidity, a waste of money, and more hurt to our environment.
Posted by: Tom | February 28, 2011 at 04:47 PM
@Scott -- There is a bit of a temperature difference between Quebec (and Canada in general) and South Carolina. Having less heat from incandescent bulbs is a bad thing up north but a very good thing down south, at least on most days.
Posted by: Jon Healey | February 28, 2011 at 05:09 PM
We can debate the environmental friendliness of the fluorescent bulbs, but Congress is clearly authorized to ban the bulbs under the Commerce Clause powers in this case. Obviously, one of the key reasons for the Commerce Clause is to prevent states from erecting defacto trade barriers. Here, cheap incandescent bulbs would be allowed if made entirely within South Carolina, but this effectively puts florescent bulbs at competitive disadvantage, thus reducing demand, which in turn restricts distribution channels again making the fluorescent bulbs even more expensive. And it effectively artificially redistributes light bulb manufacturing jobs to South Carolina. In short, the proposal would have a clear impact on interstate commerce.
Posted by: Dave | February 28, 2011 at 08:47 PM
Dave
The commerce clause has nothing to do with interstate relations. Those are two separate parts of the Constitution. Give it a read sometimes; it is a pretty good document.
Posted by: John Galt | February 28, 2011 at 09:53 PM
Hey, Scott Free.
"The problem, staffers from both parties have grumbled, is that the forks break, the spoons melt and the knives don't cut much more than a soft piece of bread. And the trash cans were replaced with a bewildering array of recycling bins that few have mastered."
If the newly elected Tea Party Patr(id)iots can't figure out a couple of recycle bins, they shouldn't be trying to run a country. Can you see Russia from the cafeteria?
Posted by: Kelly M bray | February 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM
When we see Obama's federal light bulb police repelling down the sides of people's homes from helicopters we will be able to rest a little more soundly knowing that our tax dollars are being well spent.
Hey! What's that way off in the distance? I think I can see 2012 from my house!
Posted by: Greg Maragos | February 28, 2011 at 11:46 PM
The revolution starts now, Michael!
About the unpublicised industrial politics behind the USA ban on simple incandescent light bulbs
http://ceolas.net
with documentation and copies of official communications
Posted by: lighthouse | March 01, 2011 at 01:42 AM
Dave, by your logic states like Texas could sue California for obstructing domestic trade due to California's 'green energy' requirements, which put fossil fuel producers and those who make machinery to turn fossil fuels into energy at a disadvantage -- at least according to our politicians that advertize 'green jobs'.
We've gotten to the strange point in the 'constitutional' jurisprudence of the country. I can be forced to by a product (or fined) for literally just existing in the US. I can be subject to federal storm troopers for growing and enjoying a relatively benign and certainly legal (according to my state) product in my own home. Yet somehow sexual activities known to be dangerous to the public health, and which have cost -- and continue to cost-- us billions and distort health care and research expenditures, are protected as a 'constitutional' right. Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | March 01, 2011 at 05:30 AM
Dave, by your logic states like Texas could sue California for obstructing domestic trade due to California's 'green energy' requirements, which put fossil fuel producers and those who make machinery to turn fossil fuels into energy at a disadvantage -- at least according to our politicians that advertize 'green jobs'.
We've gotten to the strange point in the 'constitutional' jurisprudence of the country. I can be forced to by a product (or fined) for literally just existing in the US. I can be subject to federal storm troopers for growing and enjoying a relatively benign and certainly legal (according to my state) product in my own home. Yet somehow sexual activities known to be dangerous to the public health, and which have cost -- and continue to cost-- us billions and distort health care and research expenditures, are protected as a 'constitutional' right. Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | March 01, 2011 at 05:30 AM
Its also strange that the folks who are all for these restrictive measures on energy consumption tend to be the most gung ho for large scale migration from the 'global south' to the north. Its pretty obvious that someone moving from Jamaica to Toronto is going to use vastly more energy--and thus have a vastly greater 'carbon footprint', than if they (and their descendants) remain in Jamaica -- even if the latter country's standard of living improves to near Canadian levels. The same applies to the US, even to warmer areas like SoCaol, because of the energy need for transportation.
Restricting immigration (legal and illegal) would no doubt be the single most effective way for Canada, and the US, to reduce future carbon emissions--any 'environmentalists' who don't address this issue are either delluded or, more likely, moral busybodies that like telling other people what they can consume and how they should live .
Posted by: Mitchell Young | March 01, 2011 at 05:40 AM
The fact that few have mastered the recycling system at the Capitol says more about their mental capacity than anyone else's.
Posted by: prilyam | March 01, 2011 at 06:56 AM
Yes, because we all know an illegal substance is EXACTLY the same as a light bulb, right? Where are the "dim bulbs" at? And what "dim bulb" thinks it is a good idea to mandate people use lights that, if broken, result in a hazardous spill in your own home?
Posted by: Shawn | March 01, 2011 at 07:44 AM
"...wimpy environmentally friendly kind pushed by a liberal Congress."
I don't consider mercury as "environmentally friendly" and that is what's in the new CFL bulbs. They are not suppose to be thrown in the trash because they are considered "Environmental Hazard," But each day thousands are dumped in landfills.
Posted by: Goeasy0 | March 01, 2011 at 08:06 AM
It's hard to fault the local legislators for challenging the federal government's interpretation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. This one issue has been used by the federal government to involve itself in all kinds of things and grow into the massive bureaucracy that we complain of today. Thus, reasonable people may disagree. Maybe, one day, we hope, the Supreme Court may reverse itself and choose to limit the overly broad interpretation of this clause.
Posted by: Jack43 | March 01, 2011 at 10:09 AM
Bypass the issue completely. Save money and simplify -- buy LED lite bulbs and you have no mercury toxins, less electricity usage, and cooler bulb temps (great for avoiding those summer energy spikes). I cut my electricity use by 33% in the summer months, just by dumping the incandescents & skipping past the CFL's. And, the LED bulbs last 10-15 years.
The old vs. new bulb controversy should not even be an issue -- CFL's are already obsolete!!
http://www.theledlight.com/
Posted by: FutureUser | March 01, 2011 at 10:58 AM