Monday, January 7, 2013

GOODBYE TOMMY E.

You gotta hand it to the federal government. They are at their best when they are looking out for our safety, our economy and our liberty.

In order to reduce the expense of providing light for our homes, they have mandated that companies no longer produce incandescent light bulbs. Whatever is in warehouse across the country is all that’s left of them

Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs, very expensive to purchase, have replaced them on store shelves.

Think of the money saved!

Think of the lives lost!

Lives lost…what are you talking about, Jo-Joe?

Turns out that the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the bulbs pose a real risk of skin cancers, including melanoma.

That ultraviolet radiation comes from faults in the protective coating of every bulb tested by the  Stoney Brook university research center of Long Island.  

Professor of Dermatology, Marcia Simon states, referencing the study, “The results were that you could actually initiate cell death.”

Not only that, but they also have mercury in them, which, if they are broken in your home, requires very special handling of almost HASMAT proportions.

Then there’s the issue of disposing of the bulbs when they burn out. That requires a special treatment at a place designed to handle the bulbs.

Let's not overlook the fact that CFLs diminish in brightness over time, so the "long life" might not be as long as one thinks. Then there's the issue that their built in balast sometimes fails before the "expected life" of the bulb, rendering it prematurely useless.

But the federal government, ever looking out for us, has decided, in its wisdom, to require the replacement of incandescent bulbs in favor of the CFLs.

But wait!! There’s an alternative!

What? You didn’t know that?

Yes! Yes! You can purchase and use halogen light bulbs!

They are really bright and put out a lot of lumens for their size.

Only they are under pressure. If you read the package you are warned to use extreme caution when screwing them in and/or taking them out, because if broken they explode and you will probably get glass in your face, or elsewhere, depending on which way you are facing when it breaks.

Oh. Did I mention? They are even more expensive than CFLs, and require a warm-up period.

All is not lost, however.

You can still opt for LED lighting.

An array of LED lights is very safe and very effective (if you have enough of them) at lighting an area, remains cool to the touch and can be hidden in cubby holes if you have the need for such a thing.

Enough of them to equal any given output of lumens by the other two choices costs between seven and ten times more.

But thank goodness the federal government has our best interests at heart.

They have saved us from those cheap, safe (if somewhat inefficient) incandescent bulbs that have proven themselves over time.

At the behest of our benevolent federal government, we can say “Goodbye” to old Tommy Edison and his archaic invention.

Be still, my heart.

A COMPARISON

CFL light bulbs have an average lifespan of 10,000 plus hours.These use approximately 75% less energy than the traditional incandescent bulb.They also contain mercury and have to be disposed of properly and require special handling if broken. Their built in balast can fail before the lifespan of the bulb is up.

LED light bulbs have an average lifespan of 60,000 plus hours.
Incandescent light bulbs have an average lifespan of 1,500 hours.

49 comments:

Ducky's here said...

From WIKI -- "This radiation could aggravate symptoms in people who already suffer skin conditions that make them exceptionally sensitive to light. The light produced by some single-envelope CFLs at distances of less than 20 cm could lead to ultraviolet exposures approaching the current workplace limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage."
----------

20cm? That's less than a foot.
Even then the danger only approaches current safe limit.

Doesn't seem to be a problem with normal usage. They've really cut my electric bill

Ducky's here said...

Industry sources claim the UV radiation received from CFLs is too small to contribute to skin cancer and the use of double-envelope CFLs "largely or entirely" mitigates any other risks.

"Our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover.” A simple shade wouldn't hurt either. Tatiana Mironova, the study’s co-author, admits to Media Matters that "there is no link in scientific literature between CFL exposure and cancer."
=======
Melanoma, Joe? You spreading a little manure again?

Dave Miller said...

Very nice sensitive... You copied and pasted someone else's comments from another blog here and tried to pass it off as you original thought...

Not only is it off topic, you couldn't even think it up yourself...

Joe, I suspect the risk in using CFLs is in reality about as likely as someone getting cancer from saccharine... Very very low... If you believe they are a dangerous product, shouldn't the government prohibit their production and use?

Darth Bacon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darth Bacon said...

Who really cares who wrote the blog . It's these Obama kool aid drinking fools like Dave here that suck up all the Obama CRAP and the entire county has to suffer from it.
I noticed that you didn't comment on its contents at all, how's that?
Maybe it's because it's ALL true. Your dear leader is leading us all straight. To 3rd worldism and that's a fact you can't get yourself to comment on, so instead you discredit the commenter... It’s our kid's who will picking up the bill for this incompetent, irresponsible, socialist President who is spending money, and giving it away like it grows on trees to gain votes. And forcing his socialistic policies down our throats
As you said..... "Very nice".

Craig said...

Not only that, but they also have mercury in them, which, if they are broken in your home, requires very special handling of almost HASMAT proportions.

Some simple precautions like opening a window, using sticky tape to pick up small pieces and removing the debris from the house if you're really worried about mercury poisoning. The bulb warriors have done a good job of scaring the public.

Let's say you broke a bulb in an unventilated room, vacuumed it up (releasing mercury into the air), then sat in that room with the vac and the windows closed for eight hours. Your mercury exposure would be less than if you ate a can of tuna. Not to mention that your exposure would be to elemental mercury, which may cause some temporary symptoms (not likely) before it passes from your body. The tuna would expose you to methyl mercury which would be absorbed by cells, brain tissue and the placenta if your pregnant. Far more dangerous.

I suspect you don't really care about mercury in CFL's. If you did, coal fired electric generation emits about 3 times more mercury to power one incandescent bulb than a broken CFL.

In 2002, my wife opened a little retail store. I did the build out and lighting was a big issue. We didn't want a bunch of fluorescent tubes, too much like an office, so we got fixtures that required bulbs. I decided to spring the extra $150 for CFL's, about 50 bulbs. We calculated the electricity savings to be $250 a year. It wasn't until last year that I had to start replacing the bulbs. They lasted 10 years, burning 10 hours a day, six days a week. I would have had to replace incandescent bulbs at least seven times over 10 years. Repeat our experience with the 15 or so shops on the block, than across the city, the state and so on. It adds up to a huge savings in dollars and consumption. We'll be a stronger, cleaner, healthier nation. If you insist on your 120 year old technology, stock up now. Freedom!

Btw, I don't remember breaking any CFL's and Home Depot takes back the spent ones free of charge. It's not a big deal.

Joe said...

Ducky: In typical liberal fashion, you distort what the reports say. The safe distance from CFLs is two feet or more.

Craig: I broke one. Took over an hour to clean it up according to instructions on EPA's website. Some of it got under an appliance and that had to be moved out, cleaned up under (interesting) and put back.

DM: "If you believe they are a dangerous product, shouldn't the government prohibit their production and use?"

No. The federal government should never have gotten involved in the first place. It's not their job. Plus, I now have had the freedom to purchase a safe product and am forced to purchase a product that is at least not as safe, and seems to be much more dangerous.

BTW: Sensitive is gone.

CFLs are a crock. Pure and simple.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I have been using CFL's in one overhead light - four bulbs - ever since they came out, only because they provide more light than the restricted 60 Watt incandescent. However, they burn out at about the same rate, and are much more expensive. I finally decided I was fed up with them and now have two of each type, waiting for the other two to fail so as to replace them with rational lighting.

The Constitution never gave the government the right to become our nanny. Liberals decided to do that because they don't seem to be able to live without government help.

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

Glenn, why is your experience so contrary to that of everyone else?

Joe the report says 20 cm. That's a little over 7 inches. I don't believe I am inaccurate by I may have misread something.

On the other hand you are not exaggerating when you make the completely unsupported claim that the bulbs cause melanomas? How did you miss that?

Craig, you can also add in the benefits from reduced coal fired emissions which completely negate any harm the bulbs may cause. Since Joe may not eat tuna your point may be lost on him since direct effects are all that matter in the conservative world.

I admire them for keeping on after taking a pretty good beating on this one. That $250 savings does sound like some real freedom. I'd say I've saved 15 - 20% on my electric since switching 5 or 6 years ago and I have yet to replace a bulb. That's enough freedom to buy a spiffy 50mm. camera lens.
Glenn and Joe, you're missing out on some real freedom.

Don't know what to say, Glenn. Guess the liberals just know how to screw in a light bulb

Xavier Onassis said...

I switched to CFLs a long, long time ago. I haven't had to buy or change a light bulb in over 5 years. I don't have cancer and I've never broken one. And if I did, I wouldn't worry about it. When I was in grade scholl we used to play with mercury because liquid metal is cool.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. If you can find a manufacturer in your state who wants to make ancient incandescent bulbs that they will only sell within your state, go for it.

Ducky's here said...

Well that's good as far as it goes, XO but what about the melanomas?

Radical Redneck said...

The problem is not just that this government is or will be insisting that you use them,and that incandescent bulbs won't be around to buy in the future.. One more loss of freedom for the... what is it again? Oh yes, the Global warming bunch of idiots and the Dictator in Chief. And yes, This is just another a right wing rant to try and blame Obama for destroying America. America's worst nightmare.

Right Dave Miller? Or do you have to ask your Queen of progressives before you answer?

Joe said...

XO: "When I was in grade scholl we used to play with mercury because liquid metal is cool."

Now I know what happened to you!

Didn't they teach you how to spell school in grade school?

Ducky's here said...

XO, when Joe starts in on the typos you know he knows he lost this round.

sue hanes said...


Joe - I don't like the curley cue light bulbs at all. I'm for staying with the old kind.

Leticia said...

I'll stick with the old fashioned light bulbs in my house. So far I am still able to purchase them.

Why would I buy something that could cause permanent harm to me or my children.

Joe said...

Craig: "...Some simple precautions like opening a window, using sticky tape..."

Those are "simple precautions" I don't have to take with incandescent bulbs. I just have to avoid stepping on the broken glass. So, has the government made it easier or harder?

They have done what they ALWAYS do.

Ducky: "...when Joe starts in on the typos you know he knows he lost this round."

The ability to take a joke is a sign of true social intelligence. I mak plinty ov tipografical errrs mislf.

I WAS JUST A POKING A LITTLE FUN!!

'Course he does make it easy.

Leticia: Well, XO has been using them since before they came out and He hasn't gotten cancer.....yet.

He's not broken one...yet.

It's all for the children. We have spent countless millions on getting mercury out of the environment and now we are introducing it back in by governmental decree.

They make perfect sense...they're the government. They know how to protect us all much better than we do, ourselves.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"They make perfect sense...they're the government. They know how to protect us all much better than we do, ourselves."

Over the past 30 years, this country has seen a dramatic increase in childhood and adult diabetes brought on by obesity.

So no, it appears that a great deal of the American population DOESN'T know how to protect itself. It is currently eating itself into life-threatening diseases because of its insistence on eating a fat, sugar, and salt laden diet.

From the American Heart Assn.:

"Today, about one in three American kids and teens is overweight or obese, nearly triple the rate in 1963. Among children today, obesity is causing a broad range of health problems that previously weren’t seen until adulthood. These include high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and elevated blood cholesterol levels. There are also psychological effects: Obese children are more prone to low self-esteem, negative body image and depression. And excess weight at young ages has been linked to higher and earlier death rates in adulthood."

As for the worry about mercury poisoning in CFL light bulbs, it is astounding to read people agonizing about this very, very small risk to one's health.

You won't hear these same folks talk about the absolute deadly risk of guns in American households--those are more likely to cause death to children than is a negligible amount of mercury in a light bulb.

Children between the ages of 5-14 are 11 times more likely to be killed by the firearms in their homes than are children who live in homes without them.

3,000 children a year die from firearms.

How many have died from a CFL?

Joe said...

SK: You have illustrated EXACTLY what I have said all along. Liberals believe that if there is something wrong the FEDERAL government is the Nanny who should take care of it for us.

I should be free to eat what I want to eat, use whatever light bulbs I want to use and shoot what I want to shoot.

The two rules we need are : 1) Don't hurt someone else and 2)Don't destroy or confiscate their property.

The FEDERAL government is the bad guy, here, constantly finding reason to usurp liberty in the name of "the good of the whole."

Contrary to the concept of the framers of the Constitution.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Joe,

As usual, you misread my comments, and you didn't address my points. There is nothing in my comment about the federal government taking care of everyone. Go back and read my comment.

What my comment points out is that the general population apparently doesn't know how to take care of themselves and their progeny--their eating choices are making them weak and sick!



Yes, of course, you and millions of other Americans are free to eat all the fat, salt, and sugar you wish to. And that attitude will weaken our country, since a sick population is a vulnerable population, and sick populations cost us billions of dollars in health care.

The preamble to the Constitution states that "We the people..." established the Constitution also "we the people" did so to "...promote the general welfare..."

Promoting the health and general welfare of a country's population would come under that statement, whether you understand it or not.

"We the people..." ARE the government.

Joe said...

SK: "...the general population apparently doesn't know how to take care of themselves..."

So, in your opinion, who should take care of the general population?

""we the people" did so to "...promote the general welfare..."

Do I understand that you believe that the word "promote" and the word" "provide" and/or "force" all mean the same thing?

(So long as it is for the "good" of the whole, of course. A distinctly communist concept.)

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Do I understand that you believe that the word "promote" and the word" "provide" and/or "force" all mean the same thing?"


Obviously YOU don't understand.

I never even hinted at that. You're imagining or reading something into my comment that is not there.

It's something you conservative do all the time.


Joe P:"(So long as it is for the "good" of the whole, of course. A distinctly communist concept.)"

No, Joe. A Founding Fathers concept:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That document can certainly be considered what is "good for the whole."


Establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves are all designed to provide for the common good of all our citizens.

When you suggest promoting the common good is a communist concept, you slander the Founding Fathers, who established that principle long before Communism existed.

As our friend Ducky often says: "Pitch 'til you win."


Joe said...

SK: You skipped right by my first question, so I'll ask again.

Since you say they are not capable of taking care of themselves ( "...the general population apparently doesn't know how to take care of themselves..."),in your opinion, who SHOULD take care of the general population?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Joe, you didn't quote my entire sentence:

"What my comment points out is that the general population apparently doesn't know how to take care of themselves and their progeny--their eating choices are making them weak and sick!

The preamble to the Constitution specifically states that it was instituted to, among other things, promote the general welfare.

A healthy population would be part of promoting the general welfare of the people.

How that is done is up to the people and their elected representatives.

Mayor Bloomberg is an example of the people's elected representative actively promoting the general welfare.

Republican ex-Governor Romney of Massachusetts is another example. He instituted universal health care, which promotes the health and general welfare of the folks in Massachusetts.



Joe said...

XO: "...the general population apparently doesn't know how to take care of themselves and their progeny--their eating choices are making them weak and sick!"

I understand that is the stance of most liberals: that the general population...is making itself sick.

So what?

I say it is NOT the FEDERAL government's role to keep them from doing so.

Your last comment mixed the federal government in with state and local governments.

"... the Constitution..." that's FEDERAL.

"Mitt Romney"...that's state.

"...Mayor Bloomberg..." that's local.

"Promote" is what's used in advertising to ENCOURAGE someone to buy or otherwise take action.

"Promote" does NOT mean to force, or make a law about something.

It is within the states' rights to make and carry out whatever laws are justified in their respective constitutions, so long as those laws don't violate the U.S. Constitution.

It is also within the rights of a city to make whatever laws it wishes so long as those laws don't violate the state Constitution or the U.S. Constitution.

I know liberals turn that equation upside down, but the framers intended us to be a collection of sovereign states working together as a unit to fund a government that performed its six duties.

One of those duties is specifically spelled out to be to PROMOTE, not to force, the general welfare.

Forcing restaurants to post calorie values is not PROMOTING, it is FORCING.

Requiring cars to have seatbelts is not PROMOTING, it is FORCING.

The Constitution does not use the phrase "...force the general welfare..." That's because the framers did not mean "force," they meant "promote."

Xavier Onassis said...

Jo Joe - Pretty sure your last comment wasn't aimed at me. Try to pay attention.

However, as far as I can tell, your definition of "freedom" is essentially chaos and anarchy where laws can be diametrically opposed from one town or state to another.

One town or state can make nudity compulsory while the town or state next door can make it punishable by death. Anything goes as long as it isn't the Federal Government making the rules.

Oh, and for you "small government" advocates, I would remind you that the smallest possible government is a Monarchy. The Founding Fathers rejected that form of government.

Craig said...

the framers intended us to be a collection of sovereign states working together as a unit to fund a government that performed its six duties.

No, they didn't. Unless you want to change the meaning of 'sovereign'. The states are given wide latitude but they are not sovereign. The framers were divided on the enumerated v. implied powers. Implied is what we have operated under since George Washington.

"Promote" does NOT mean to force, or make a law about something

What does "provide" mean? Joe, we've been over this. Art. 1, sect. 8, clause 1,
provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Even by the narrowest (Madisonian) interpretation of the Taxing and Spending Clause, General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause, the federal govt. is within it's purview to regulate the manufacture and sale of light bulbs. Managing the country's resources, electrical power is one, is the feds responsibility.

You're still free to burn up as much energy as you you can afford but why would you? Because you think 'freedom' means having whatever you want and having it now. Like a petulant child.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

If the government is so concerned about obesity endangering health to the point they start telling us what we can eat, and that it is for the "general welfare," then why don't those hypocrites ban tobacco in all its forms?!?!?! Instead, they subsidize the tobacco farmers!!!!

Joe said...

XO: "...your definition of "freedom" is essentially chaos and anarchy..."

Exactly the opposite. A pure democracy IS chaos and anarchy by definition. Ours is a Representative, Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

The framers deliberately put restrictions on what the federal government can and cannot do.

Historically, at the various political Party conventions, whenever a state was polled for its vote on an issue, the speaker for the state prefaced his remarks with "The great sovereign state of (whatever) casts its votes for (whomever)."

States were designed to be sovereign, should be sovereign and the only reason they aren't sovereign is because their sovereignty has been usurped by the likes of FDR and liberal/progressives.

Craig: Article 1 Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

This is not a description of the powers of the federal government, it is a description of how they pay for what they do: taxes.

Their job is to promote the general welfare, as stated in the Preamble. It is NOT to force the general welfare upon us.

The way they pay for the provisions of the Preamble is through taxation.

You people have twisted this up so badly that it is no wonder we're so divided as a country. It's your fault because you don't know how to understand what you read.

There is NO Constitutional power for the government to FORCE the general welfare on us.

Liberals do it anyway, because they are drunk on power.

GEC: Consistancy is not a hallmark of the federal government or of liberals. They don't care about it one whit.

Ducky's here said...

Glenn, if you've been paying attention, tobacco sales are way, way down in America.
I also challenge you to point out any foods which have been banned. Yes, NYC has banned trans-fat but the federal government has not banned anything.

I appreciate the governments requirement that foods have nutrition labeling. It enables better choices and as a right winger you're all about choice so what's the issue?
I imagine you'll come back with school lunch limitations but I adolescents are there to be educated and that includes nutrition.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,
So, tobacco sales are down; what has that got to do with the point I made!?!?!?!

as for banning foods, I noted that the Mayor of NYC banned the sale of soft drinks over 32 Oz. So now someone will have to buy two drinks instead of one - and what did that accomplish other than to make liberals feel good by thinking they helped solve the problem of obesity?!?!?!

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "States were designed to be sovereign, should be sovereign and the only reason they aren't sovereign is because their sovereignty has been usurped by the likes of FDR and liberal/progressives."

Such blatant nonsense on so many levels.

First, I give you George Washington himself who stated in the 1787 Letter of Transmittal to Congress that "It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests."

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Second of all, it wasn't "FDR and the Progressives" who stripped away whatever limited sovereignty the states had. It was The First Republican, Abraham Lincoln, who settled that matter for all time during the Civil War.

That clearly established the supremacy of the Federal Government over State Governments.

If you're looking for someone to blame, blame your own.

Ducky's here said...

Take it easy on Joe, XO, he is still in mourning for a return to the Articles of Confederation.

Joe said...

XO: "If you're looking for someone to blame, blame your own."

Oh, I do!

I have always thought that Abraham Lincoln was NOT the best president we've ever had.

For instance the Emancipation Proclamation. What's THAT about?

And the part about "...nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

"...under God?..."

How dare he?

On the other hand, there is the the wonderful work of Democrats in history as they established and promoted the KKK.

And the way George Wallace stood up to the National Guard was exemplary!

And how about Jimmy Carter giving the old college try at freeing some hostages.

And now, Barack Obama has an ally ready to offer a bill to eliminate presidential term limits.

You should have read some of the other things George Washington wrote and said.

Xavier Onassis said...

Ducky - I just don't have any patience for Jo Joe and his sycophants arguments about State Sovereignty.

His view of our "Representative, Constitutional Republic" would allow Sovereign States to do whatever they want according to their own State Constitutions with no Federal control.

American Citizenship would be a Free Market with competition among the states. Don't like the state you are in? Move somewhere else!

If Kansas thinks schools should teach Creationism over Science? Let them! Don't like it? Move to Kentucky!

If Kentucky decides to go all Islam, implement strict Sharia Law and start chopping people's limbs off for listening to music? Let them! Don't like it? Move to Utah!

If Utah decides to reconnect with it's Mormon roots, reinstate polygamy, allow 60 year old church elders to build a harem of 14 year old "sister wives"? Let them! Don't like it? Move to Idaho!

If Idaho decides that no resident can occupy a domicile more grandiose than Ted Kaczynski's Uni-bomber cabin? Let them! Don't like it? Move to Washington!

If Washington decides to legalize every drug you've ever heard of and require that every state resident must show up completely nude at the License Bureau and submit to a "genital grope" in order to renew their Driver's License? Let them! Don't like it? Move to Texas.

The issue of "State Sovereignty" doesn't stand up to close scrutiny when viewed through the lens of an actual Sovereign Nation.

The whole "States Rights" argument was settled by the Civil War and people who still cling to it just look silly and uninformed.

Ducky's here said...

@Joe --- And now, Barack Obama has an ally ready to offer a bill to eliminate presidential term limits.

---
No kidding? Must be Bill Ayers or Michael Moore.

Lone Ranger said...

I cannot for the life of me find where the federal government has the constitutional authority to mandate what kind of light bulbs we can use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVt_sH2oI7s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FURlrV0ovnE

Xavier Onassis said...

Tonto's Catcher - As soon as I saw Glenn Beck's face in those videos, whatever point you think you were trying to make became irrelevant.

The Federal Government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

If you can find a manufacturer who is willing to invest in the infrastructure necessary to make your precious, antiquated, primitive, inefficient, fragile, incandescent bulbs and only transport, advertise and sell them within your own "sovereign" state, then go for it. Waste money and electricity to your heart's content! Your local utility company will be more than happy to take your money.

Xavier Onassis said...

Jo Joe - "And now, Barack Obama has an ally ready to offer a bill to eliminate presidential term limits."

** sigh **

You really should research things before you regurgitate whatever you've ingested from Fox News and Talk Radio.

Not doing so makes you look like a very silly man.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp

Joe said...

XO: "...would allow Sovereign States to do whatever they want according to their own State Constitutions with no Federal control."

That is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I said.

But I do not expect that you would understand. You regularly twist words to enable yourself to attack whatever does not fit your agenda.

SNOPES, eh? Well, let's use your own resource.

Quoting from SNOPES:

“In the several decades since the passage of the 22nd Amendment, various members of Congress have offered proposals for repealing it (all, obviously without success), twenty-three of them in the last two decades alone. The Most recent such proposal is H.J. 15, introduced by Rep. Jose E. Serrano of New York.:

“‘Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as president’

“If passed by both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures (an exceedingly unlikely possibility), such an amendment would allow any president to serve an unlimited number of terms in office…”

The point is, there are liberal factions that do not want the terms of the President to be limited.

That opens doors that were rightly closed by wiser men.

Craig said...

Joe, Art. 1, sect. 8, clause 1 clearly says that Congress, federal govt., has the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. Are you saying the preamble has supremacy over the body of the Constitution?

States are not sovereign. Not even a little bit sovereign. It's like, you can't be a little bit pregnant. A sovereign state could mint it's own currency, have it's own armed forces, close it's boarders to other states and negotiate it's own trade deals with other states or countries. States can't do any of those things. They don't fit the definition of sovereign.

Even the framers didn't subscribe to your 'strict constitutionalist' interpretation. You can show me all the quotes you want but their actions prove it. Washington's establishment of a national bank, his put down of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Merchant Marine Act of 1798, mandating militia men to buy their own weapons (you see, not many citizens owned a gun that was in working order).

Even Madison, who argued for enumerated powers, endorsed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson couldn't find the constitutional authority for the Louisiana Purchase but he did it anyway. Despite what you want to believe about the Framers, when it came to governing, they were pragmatists and more often than not, came down on the side of implied powers.

Holy cow, Joe. I really admire your last stand for freedom on Light Bulb Hill, but in the end, modernity will crush you.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - You conveniently left out the fact that Rep. David Dreier of California (Republican) offered a similar proposal in 1997, as did Rep. Guy Vander Jagt of Michigan (Republican) in 1991 and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (Republican) in 1995. So to claim tha efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment is an exclusively liberal effort or that it is specific to Democrats in general or President Obama in particular is a flat out lie unsupported by the facts.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Abe Lincoln was indeed the first president to trounce all over the Constitution and deny states' rights, as well as other violations.

Joe said...

XO: "So to claim tha efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment is an exclusively liberal effort or that it is specific to Democrats in general or President Obama in particular is a flat out lie..."

I clearly pointed out that this is not the first time it has been tried.

Now its being tried by Rep. Jose E. Serrano of New York.

The fact that others (even Republicans) have tried it before has nothing to do with today.

That was then, this is now. Now Rep. Jose E. Serrano of New York is trying it again.

That is what is happening.

Joe said...

Craig: "Even the framers didn't subscribe to your 'strict constitutionalist' interpretation."

Yeah, they did.

And I am not the least surprised that facts about them matter not to you.

Joe said...

GEC: Lincoln accomplished some helpful things, but he did some of them by violating the principles of the Constitution.

I am an equal opportunity criticizer.

Republican or Democrat, it matters not to me. If either does wrong, I am want to point out the error of his/her ways.