On Jun 20, 2:32*pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
* * This thing sounds a lot more like a troll than a real message.

* * Of course I don't limit how stupid Congress can be, I can't see where
there is a constitutional issue. *The "facts" provided are weak at best..
Frankly I would question any information coming from the same source.


Yes, I was left wondering what kind of an idiot this Congressman is
too. He's certainly free to object to the law that Congress passed
regarding light bulbs and there is certainly some basis to do so.
However, to drag constitutionality into it is silly. Congress has
actually banned private ownership of gold and eliminated freon in air
conditioning, etc. How can it suddenly be that it's
unconstitutional?






"metspitzer" wrote in message

...





WASHINGTON - Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs effective in 2014 as a
result of an energy bill signed into law earlier this year.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, says his objection is very basic - the
Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to do anything remotely like
banning a product that has been used safely and efficiently for more
than 100 years in favor of Chinese-imported compact fluorescent light
bulbs that pose considerable health and safety risks.

Poe cited the dangers associated with CFLs, which carry small amounts
of mercury that can enter the environment through breakage and
disposal. He also objected to reliance on the CFL alternatives when,
currently, all are made in China.

"Congress passed an energy bill that should be called the
anti-American non-energy bill because it punishes Americans for using
energy when it should be finding new sources of available energy," Poe
stated.

(Story continues below)

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67573

--
Joseph Meehan

*Dia 's Muire duit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -