[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
The government reaching into my living room to set the thermostat is completely outside of what the Constitution provides for.
[/QUOTE]
If such a law ever gets passed to regulate household thermostats, it will probably only have to meet the rational basis test. I bet more libertarians would be upset by that test if they understood its ramifications and potential applications. The constitution already allows prohibition of heating houses by burning wood in a fireplace in many California communities. Do you really think it would be such a stretch to reach for the thermostats? I am not saying it is a good idea but it does not seem like your thermostat is as constitutionally sacrosanct as some people think.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
The Constitution doesn’t allow the government to do anything, it mostly tells the government what it cannot do.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Our Constitution is one of enumerated powers. It sets out expressly what the government can do. The bill of rights places limits on those powers.
[QUOTE=the X Amendment]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
The government reaching into my living room to set the thermostat is completely outside of what the Constitution provides for.
[/QUOTE]
Which one? While the US Constitution might not give the federal government the right to regulate your living room temperature (unless it effects interstate commerce) I’m sure the California one does.
:dubious:
Either way guys, I got $5 that the US constitution says nothing about allowing or prohibiting the heating of houses via wood fires in the state of California.
I mean come on now, look at the date the constitution was written and look at the date California was admitted to the Union.
I read half the posts on the first page before I realized that this is mostly about air-conditioning, not heat; only the heat in my home is controlled by the wall themostat, and the ACs each have their own themostats. In order for your themostat to control the AC too, not the heat, you have to have a central system, don’t you? Are they common in CA? Such systems aren’t the majority around here, but it only gets hot 4 months of the year. Are they fairly standard out west? Enough so that the majority of homes would actually be effected by the plan?
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
I’m sure the California one does.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know anything about the California Constitution. In the interest of fighting ignorance, where does it allow the government to regulate your living room temperature?
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
And what’re you going to do when California bans the sale of incandescent lightbulbs, Mr. Smart Guy?
[/QUOTE]
Use a space-heater?
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
It’s stuff like this that puts me in hysterics when people talk about forcing everyone to switch electrics or plug-in hybrids. Sorry, guys, but the freakin’ grid can’t take it, and until folks are willing to shell out the kind of cabbage needed to upgrade it, large numbers of folks with such vehicles is a bad idea.
[/QUOTE]
Cars would mostly be plugged in at night, and the power companies want you to use more electricity at night.
Obviously, more electricity is used during the day than at night. Let’s say that on an average day, the power plants are running at 80% of capacity during the day and 50% at night.* The power company doesn’t want to see the usage rise to 90% during the day, because that would mean that they need to start building an expensive new plant. However, they don’t mind seeing night-time usage rise to 70%, because (assuming that you aren’t on a fancy power rate plan with different rates for different times of day) you pay for the total amount of power that you use. Of course, if so many people had electric cars that night-time usage rose to 90%, that would be another story. (There would be other fallout from that too, such as a drastic decrease in the gas-tax revenues that are used for street repair.)
Carol it has been cited twice. The states can pass any law that is not prohibited by either the US constitution or the state constitution. If you think either of those prohibits this type of law it is on you to cite where that prohibition is. Platitudes and general appeals to freedom liberty or lower taxes won’t cut it.
[QUOTE=askeptic]
Carol it has been cited twice. The states can pass any law that is not prohibited by either the US constitution or the state constitution. If you think either of those prohibits this type of law it is on you to cite where that prohibition is. Platitudes and general appeals to freedom liberty or lower taxes won’t cut it.
[/QUOTE]
You offered this specific arguement:
“The constitution already allows prohibition of heating houses by burning wood in a fireplace in many California communities.”
Cite? In other words, I don’t care if such a law actually exists, but on what constitutional grounds is it justified?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
You offered this specific arguement:
“The constitution already allows prohibition of heating houses by burning wood in a fireplace in many California communities.”
Cite? In other words, I don’t care if such a law actually exists, but on what constitutional grounds is it justified?
[/QUOTE]
Carol the issue for state laws is not what authorizes it but what prohibits it. If you suggest there is some constitutional bar then it is your job to cite it.
[QUOTE=askeptic]
Carol the issue for state laws is not what authorizes it but what prohibits it. If you suggest there is some constitutional bar then it is your job to cite it.
[/QUOTE]
Not true. State Constitutions, or state laws, cannot take away rights.
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Then would you mind telling us which part of the constitution (US or CA) gives householders the right to control their own thermostates? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
That’s the whole point! Our rights don’t come from the government. They are inalienable.
Why, all of them. We simply allow the Government certain rights. This is a representative democracy, where power comes from the consent of the governed, rather than a crowned head who is empowered by the divine right of monarchy. Did you take one civics course, askeptic?
