Title reminds me of this commercial:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop? Let's find out....One, Two...crunch....Three....It takes Three
Posted on 07/17/2011 9:49:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
IN 5½ months, the sale of traditional 100-watt incandescent light bulbs will become illegal in the United States. Twelve months later, the same fate will befall most 75-watt incandescents, and one year after that, conventional 60- and 40-watt bulbs will be gone as well. Thomas Edison’s world-changing invention is one of the most enduringly popular products ever created - something so useful, so dependable, and so cheap that over the course of more than a century, consumers bought them by the billions. Yet thanks to a federal law that relatively few Americans knew anything about when it was passed by Congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2007, the familiar light bulb is about to be banned.
Americans certainly know about that law now. On paper, its purpose is to increase energy efficiency by requiring that bulbs produce more light per watt. But by setting the new standards higher than the common incandescent can reach, the law’s real-world effect is to deprive most Americans of the freedom to buy the light bulbs they prefer. Instead, they will be forced to spend more money for fragile halogen bulbs or for the swirled compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that have been around for decades but that most consumers have never wanted to buy.
The looming ban has stoked grassroots outrage, especially on the right. Presidential candidate Michele Bachman draws cheers and applause when she tells Republican audiences: “President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want.’’ Last week, a bill repealing the light bulb mandates was put to a vote in the House of Representatives; it won a majority (233-193), with nearly every Republican favoring repeal and nearly every Democrat opposed. Since two-thirds support was needed for passage, the 2007 law remains intact.
For now.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Remain in denial. You never address how major corporations (businesses) have extended since 1787. Only how the Federal Gov’t has. You are one dimensional, but do carry on! Better to have tunnel vision than none at all.
It is cheating to violate its original meaning in order to use it for purposes not intended by the Founders. Cheating is dishonorable.
B R O K E N
R E C O R D
You are Obama’s best friend with your all or nothing purity but it sure makes you feel better. Meanwhile back in the real world real people find judicial work arounds of the Commerce Clause and don’t spend years in futile quests to amend the Constitution. But why should you care since you live on Fantasy Island
Do you or anyone know the reasoning behind the banning of the incandescent bulb?
###
It is so GE and a couple of other corporations can make more money and pay off more corrupt politicians.
I, for one, will enjoy the spectacle as Enviro-Nazis and their Drug Warrior soulmates get thrown under the bus.
Title reminds me of this commercial:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop? Let's find out....One, Two...crunch....Three....It takes Three
“I just happen to like that pesky original Commerce Clause.”
After reading your profile, I’ll not jump to conclusions. Please offer further explanation of this statement that you made. I’d like to better understand your position.
“I, for one, will enjoy the spectacle as Enviro-Nazis and their Drug Warrior soulmates get thrown under the bus.”
OK, after further reading I have realized that we are on the same page. No need to answer my previous post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.