Page 59 of 78 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 771

Thread: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

  1. #581
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    Well, I can think for myself. Where do you find the authority in the Constitution?
    Of course, you are free to think that you are the arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. Knock yourself out! However for those that follow the rule of law, this is what the Constitution specifies:

    "ARTICLE III

    SECTION 1.

    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

    Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #582
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,170

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    How is banning out of date lightbulbs more than an incidental extension of the power to regulate commerce? I can hardly think of a more minor application of that power...

    Whenever anybody starts spamming founder quotes I just kind of tune out. You can find founder quotes that say pretty much anything. They were just as divided as politicians are today. There were some that wanted a very constrained government sort of like we had previously under the articles of confederation and there were some that wanted a much more powerful government than we have today. What matters isn't what the individual founders wanted the constitution to say, what matters is what it does say. That's what the states ratified- the constitution itself, not whatever random cherry picked set of founder statements you dig up.

    Not that the founder's papers aren't interesting. They certainly are. Both sides of lot of the big debates we still have today were laid out and argued very intelligently by some of them. But they were most definitely not of a single mind about what the government should be like. Quite the opposite. That's what makes them so interesting to read.
    I will leave your first paragraph for a bit later. I wish to take on your cynicism about the Founders. There were diverse opinions among the Founding Fathers, but they came to a compromised agreement over things. For example, slavery issue was addressed with a compromise. The manner in which the members of House and Senate were elected was a compromise. For example, if you and I were establishing a football league and you said that a touchdown should be worth 10 points and I say it should be 3, we later come to an agreement that it would be 6 and we would add another point if an extra point was kicked. If that were done, what is a touchdown worth. The answer is clearly 6. According to your rules of the game, if you score a touchdown, you want your team to be given 10 and mine 3. But the fact is that a touchdown would be 6.

    As for spamming Founders quotes, I have no idea what you are talking about. My passion is American history from 1775 to approximately 1803. I have read many books (probably 100 or more) on the topic and with a focus on the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention is documented. Read it. The Federalist Papers are documented. Read them. The ratifying conventions are documented. Read them. The correspondence by the Founders are documented. Read them.

    There was a thread here on religion in the Constitution section and the person quoted from the Founders. The problem with the quotes were that some could not be found from anything buy athiest sites and others were taken totally out of context. The quotes were parts of letters that Jefferson had written. The full letters were online and prove the falseness of the writer's claims. If you wish to take issue with the quotes I use, please feel free to do so. Many of them are from original sources. Others are from historians who have written on the subject.

    As for what the states ratified, I suggest you read the notes on the Conventions. They are quite lengthy, but they provide what they people said and discussed. For example, Patrick Henry wanted to stop the ratification of the Constitution. He argued every which way as to why it was a bad document. One of his arguments was that the Necessary and Proper Clause, which he called the "sweeping clause" would give the central goverment unending authority. As I have shown here, Madison, Randolph, and Nicholas refuted Henry's claims in Virginia. Wilson made the same arguments as Madison in Pennsylvania. Hamilton did the same in New York.

    History is history, my friend. You can dismiss history if you wish. Look at this through your own prism. You say that global warming is happening and that it is man-made. Others say that there is no proof that it is mand-made. Should we look at this as you look at history? Oh, people differ, let's ignore the subject. You know, as well as I do, that facts are facts. If global warming exists, it exists. If it is man-made, it is man-made. History exists. If Madison, Wilson, Nicholas, Randolph, and Hamilton believed that the Necessary and Proper Clause added no new power to the central government than to simply implement the power previously enumerated, then that is what they said. Those arguments are what drove the ratifying conventions to ratify the Constitution. If Madison or any of them would have agreed with Patrick Henry, the Constitution would not exist. It would not have been ratified.

  3. #583
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,170

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Of course, you are free to think that you are the arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. Knock yourself out! However for those that follow the rule of law, this is what the Constitution specifies:

    "ARTICLE III

    SECTION 1.

    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

    Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
    I'll address this issue later today. I need to get to bed. I am not an arbiter. I am a full-time student of the Constitution. This clause does not explicitly provide for a power to overturn legislation of the Congress or the States or to interpret what the Constitution means. I'll cover this later. Nite.

  4. #584
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    I'll address this issue later today. I need to get to bed. I am not an arbiter. I am a full-time student of the Constitution.
    Well then, your opinion would certain trump the Supreme Court's decisions.


    This clause does not explicitly provide for a power to overturn legislation of the Congress or the States or to interpret what the Constitution means. I'll cover this later. Nite.
    It gives judicial power to the one Supreme Court. Congress of course creates legislation, but if the Constitutionality is challenged, the court decides. Sorry, but I can find no reference in the Constitution to where the SC can even be overruled by "full-time students of the Constitution."
    Last edited by Catawba; 12-22-11 at 03:45 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #585
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    If the new technology is actually better people will use it. How many here still light their houses with a candle or an oil lamp? The government didn't have to make either one illegal.
    Nor did government have to ban slide rules, or cathode-ray-tube based televisions, or horse-drawn vehicles or phonograph records or chemical-based photography.

    When a new technology is developed to the point that it is ready to replace an older technology, the older technology will fade into obsolescence on its own as consumers willingly buy the newer technology in preference to the older.

    A “superior” technology that can only prevail by having government impose bans or restrictions on the older technology that it means to replace is not “superior” after all, and government is doing a great disservice to those it is supposed to serve, by forcing them to use what is truly an inferior technology to that which they would use if given their own free choice.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  6. #586
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    I thought statists were like conservatives, against change…
    By definition, statists are in favor of greater government control, and less individual freedom. All that it has to do with change is that statists will tend to be in favor of change that makes government more powerful, and opposed to change that gives individuals more freedom.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  7. #587
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Lets just cut to the chase. Nobody actually cares that they get to use the old janky lightbulbs. This whole thing is just an excuse for Republicans to go around ranting about how they don't believe in global warming/science.
    I do. I'm remodeling the bathroom. Old bulb quits. I grab one of the twisty ones the wife has bought. The light it emits sucks. Out it comes, and I get into the ones I had bought and put away.

    Much better.

  8. #588
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Another insight by Gill based on absolutely nothing.



    This makes sense for you. You don't know about it, therefore it doesn't exist. Got it!
    Ahhh, ignorance is bliss isn't it.....

    In 2020, all light bulbs will be required to produce 45 lumens per watt. Halogen bulbs don't meet that requirement, therefore they will no longer be allowed.

    Maybe you should learn a little more on the subject before spouting off about things you know nothing about.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  9. #589
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Ahhh, ignorance is bliss isn't it.....

    In 2020, all light bulbs will be required to produce 45 lumens per watt. Halogen bulbs don't meet that requirement, therefore they will no longer be allowed.

    Maybe you should learn a little more on the subject before spouting off about things you know nothing about.
    Oh bull****.

    You really need to stop making stuff up out of thin air.

  10. #590
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Nor did government have to ban slide rules, or cathode-ray-tube based televisions, or horse-drawn vehicles or phonograph records or chemical-based photography.

    When a new technology is developed to the point that it is ready to replace an older technology, the older technology will fade into obsolescence on its own as consumers willingly buy the newer technology in preference to the older.
    Well the government DID have to ban leaded gasoline, mandate catalytic converters, stop the sale of most asbestos prducts, PCBs, etc. All of these changes were for the public good and they required the introduction of new products.

Page 59 of 78 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •