Light Bulbs are getting Expensive / New Tax

[terry]

Yes dpb; that could be true.

In the evenings which of course are longer in summer so lights go on later and evening is when it's almost always cool here.

So very rarely does anyone here have or use AC units (unless it is one of those reverse cycle heat pumps for heating the house in winter) and doubt even then that they would keep changing back and forth between heating and cooling modes?

Last few days of August (which we consider late summer) it's been around 15 degrees Celsius (Approx mid 60s Fahrenheit) during the day. Some 5 C, degrees cooler at night; or approx low 50s. F. No trouble sleeping! Lights go on later in summer/fall and do contribute slightly to home heat. In fact only today, Sept 6th, is it cool enough to even consider switching on any of the heating thermostats. It' s now past midday and haven't done so yet.

So we don't have any cooling load at all. Do occasionally run a dehumidifier in part of basement during the summer to keep down dampness due to warmer more humid outside air seeping in there.

Otherwise our almost completely in ground basement stays at around

55-60 deg F. most of the time, except very coldest and windiest weather when it may occasionally dip to around 50 deg. F.

You have to think in terms of a climate that never gets warm enough (or only very rarely for a few days a year at most) to need any cooling. Only a short distance from the North Atlantic this is considered a 'maritime' climate; heat and cold being modified by the mass of the ocean.

[dpb]

It's not clear it is actually in contradiction...

[Kurt Ullman]

Each House dude or dudette is current representing something like

650, 000 people (IIRC). The consitution sets it at 30,000 each. How can that not be clear?

[dpb]

To me it's so patently related to population of the time that imo it is irrelevant. Intent was clear to be made to balance representation. There are also the passages that provide for the Congress to have the ability to make such necessary rules and regulations, etc., that a far better Constitutional scholar than we would have to work out the implications.

That it should perhaps be repealed to be consonant w/ the letter is, I suppose, arguable by pedants, but hardly worth the effort or trouble. (Although, no second thought, if we could get them occupied on such weighty matters, it might be good overall to minimize the collateral damage they otherwise inflict... :) ).

In the pragmatic view I tend to adopt also, it's not unconstitutional until the courts declare it so. Undoubtedly you could make a name for yourself by managing to make that happen... :)

--

[dpb]

...

...

The point is it may work in your locale, but as an overall plan it may not have much net effect on reducing consumption on a more global scale...

--

[Kurt Ullman]

True. But in those areas where two constitutional provisions overlap, the courts generally go with the specific as opposed to the general. Even the ability to make rules, etc., states that they are only those necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. One of which really specifically is the 30,000 per rule. It would get REAL interesting if anyone wanted to push it.

Of course it is worth the trouble if it violates the constitutional provisions (unless you really want something like 10,000 Congress critters running around causing all sorts of mischief). The constitution shouldn't be something that you can pick and choose when there is a set standard.

Can't argue there. Heck I can be found standing over the dead body of someone, with the knife and three guns in my hand saying I told you I was gonna off your skinny little behind, and I am still not guilty until a court says otherwise. (g).

[dpb]

But, by any reasonable interpretation, a body of 10,000 would be so unworkable as to make it "necessary and proper" to limit the number in order to effectively be able to execute the powers...

I really doubt it would cause much of a ripple at all as it is simply too mundane a change. While not a judicial scholar I have a hard time conceiving that the Court would consider it significant enough of a question to even docket it. Then again, they've taken on some other things that seemed pretty mundane at times, too...

Well, it doesn't appear there have been very many that think it worth the trouble given they've had almost 100 years to have done something about it and it hasn't happened yet (nor as far as I know has it ever been _seriously_ raised as an issue...

While in general I'm more for stricter interpretation than opposed, some things simply are so mundane as to be unworthy of the effort to "correct". This is one imo. The only rational change is to simply delete the clause and the effect can be obtained far more easily under the present rules as has been done...

OJ's really happy over that minor point, too...

--

[Kurt Ullman]

But the actual number is still there and the courts tend to put much more weight on what is there than what should be. You don't have to be a terribly strict constructionist to acknowledge that the figure is there in black and white with nothing saying otherwise about how well it is supposed to work. Heck, wouldn't surprise me in the least that the Founders put that in to MAKE it unweildy and hard to get things done. (g).

Nah, It is a constitutional number. At the absolute minimum, it is an interpretation of two parts that seem to be in conflict (the number vs the "as needed" clause). They'd HAVE to take it if anyone complained.

Me neither. Like I said earlier this is probably like the fact nobody has actually pressed to get a judgement on the War Powers Act. Everybody is afraid they might lose and be worse off. Interesting occassional debate, though doncha think.

And in a couple days we'll probably see how Phil Spector feels about it, too (g).

[clifto]

Too inconvenient. I'd have to give up a lot of hobbies.

[dpb]

You allude to a point I intended to make...

One would have to go back and look at the historical record of how the number actually got into the final document, but it would not surprise me at all that it is there not in order to actually determine the overall size of the body but to ensure against gerrymandering. If, indeed such were the context, the actual magnitude of the number itself could be argued to be valid on in a relative sense in even a (somewhat) strict (as opposed to literal) interpretation.

The War Powers Act, while an interesting question, is irrelevant to this one...

--

[Jim Yanik]

dpb wrote in news:fbpe28$qkv$ [e-mail]:

What a lot of weaseling. The Constitution was SPECIFIC.

Obeying the Constitution is "hardly worth the trouble"? If they do it there,they will do it elsewhere.Which they have.

That's the sort of permissive view that helps those who would disregard our Constitution.

IMO,people just don't want to open the door of amending the Constitution. With the way people think these days,it IS a scary thought.

[Jim Yanik]

dpb wrote in news:fbph3m$3ml$ [e-mail]:

I agree. But the solution is to not IGNORE the Constitution and do as you please,you do it RIGHT and AMEND it.

depends on the language of the amendment that gets proposed.

[Kurt Ullman]

Wouldn't know why through the Congress. That opens up just one thing at a time by definition. Now a new Convention would put everything back up for grabs and I would have to agree with you there.

[Jim Yanik]

"kpg*" wrote in news:Xns99A3715C634ECipostthereforeiam@69.28.186.120:

and worse,you can't keep your government in line. that is the true reason for the 2nd Amendment. (see Declaration of Independence..)

People tend to overlook that criminals can carry OTHER items as weapons,and the best defense for most people IS a handgun. No other item is as effective,for the widest range of people(elderly,handicapped,small,outnumbered),with as low a risk to themselves.

[dpb]

...

...

But, you just agreed the "necessary and proper" action was to make a rule as allowed...so, I would argue it wasn't ignored at all, simply another provision utilized rather than the other... :)

--

[Jim Yanik]

terry wrote in news: [e-mail]:

before 1968,when the US passed it's 1968 Gun Control Act,guns were MUCH more easily available,could be mailordered,bought across state lines,no ID needed,were sold at hardware stores,school kids brought them to school for use at school gun clubs or on,the way home,virtually NO restrictions,yet gun violence was low. People didn't lock their doors.People were more moral and law-abiding. enacting more and more gun control has not made things any safer.

Comparing a tribal society to Western,democratic society is not honest. the two are NOT equivalent.

Not because of a lack of guns,but because of cultural or other reasons.

In YOUR opinion.Others have other situations.

No need for self-defense against criminals(or an enraged ex- husband or a stalker)? Bull. Only because you are isolated and rural. But you would force others with a real need to go without.

the mere sight of a gun is no need for fear.

the influence they have is that of CITIZENS who vote.

You hardly know what "ODCs" are thinking.

Yes,they came in handy in overthrowing the incumbent oppressive government;the British. Without them,the job would have been near impossible. Note the first thing the Brits tried was to DISARM the colonists. (of course,they have benefitted greatly from the formation of the USofA.)

you are free to comment;that's part of a free society.

Gee,what a surprise....that criminals will smuggle in guns to areas with tighter controls on them.

Usually with an increase in other crime,as people cannot defend themselves and their property.Criminals know they are safe,don't have to fear their prey.

LMAO.Since when do criminals care about something being a crime?

The FACT that Canadians are smuggling guns into Canada shows that there is a criminal demand and use for them *in Canada*(presumably by CANADIANS). BTW,a criminal does not have to FIRE a gun to use it in a crime.It greatly aids them in dominating a victim,though.

Nor does a ODC(ordinary decent citizen) have to fire a gun to use it in self-defense;often the crook chooses to flee when their victim produces a gun,thus no shot need be fired,and in fact it is criminal to shoot a fleeing crook that is no threat to you anymore.

as it does here in the US. Too bad judges often choose to NOT apply those stiffer penalties. (appointed judges,not subject to elections)

Because the crooks can prey on people with other items like knives and clubs.

[Jim Yanik]

clifto wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Not practically possible. Term limits would be a practical,achievable solution.

Which rarely occurs.More often,you get a oppressive person. A BIG gamble,too.

[dpb]

...

If you feel so strongly that this is a concern, find a group and challenge it.

As I noted elsewhere, one would have to look at the context of the arguments made at the time the document was drafted, but it certainly is well within my reading that the point wasn't at all to mandate the absolute size of the body but to prevent jerrymandering and the avoidance of any one district being underrepresented vis a vis another. In that light, the sense of the document has been maintained inviolate.

--

[Jim Yanik]

dpb wrote in news:fbpql5$udg$ [e-mail]:

learn to read;I said nothing of the sort. I -agreed- that 10,000 Representatives would be unworkable and that it would be necessary to limit the number,but I did NOT say in any form that just passing a law would be a proper solution. The sole proper solution is to amend the Constitution.(not "make a rule") The "method" used was and is -not allowed- under the Constitution.

But it WAS ignored. They failed to effect the change in the only legit manner allowed them. Instrad,they enacted an unconstitutional law and "looked the other way",IOW;IGNORING the Constitution's ONLY defined procedure for changing itself.

You are just putting out excuses.

[dpb]

You're so much fun, though... :)

My reading is the rules give them the leeway to do what they did. So far, that hasn't been overturned.

But, since it hasn't been challenged in 100 years -- if you're so incensed, draft an amendment, get your Congressman to sponsor it, and see if it has legs...