Toilet Law: unconstitutional?

In the United States today, it is illegal to sell toilets with more than a certain water capacity (don’t remember exact figure). Exactly how is it possible that the government can mandate that because they think conserving water is a good idea, that they can ban an otherwise perfectly legal consumer item? This law smacks of something a Socialist government would do rather than a democracy. Why not ban extra-thick toilet paper while they’re at it to conserve our nation’s forests? Finally, I’ve never understood how they can ban toilets that use a few extra gallons per flush, but there’s no law that says I can’t go out and have a swimming pool built in my yard and fill it with thousands of gallons of water.

Duh, completely missed thread 003071. Moderator, could you move the above post please?

Out of curiousity, Lumpy, just what part of what constitution do you think is being violated by laws restricting sales of high-flow toilets?

Socialism is an economic system; democracy is an economic system. The two are no more related or opposed than heat and melody.

Boris, democracy ISN’T an economic system. Democracy is a form of government. That’s why Sweden’s government is Democratic Socialism. Their form of government is democratic, and their economic system is socialist. If you were talking about economic systems, the United States (on paper) has a capitalistic system.

“There are many sweeping generalizations that are always true” -Space Ghost

I meant “socialist” in the broader sense, the idea that the government is supposed to direct society and tell all us peasants what’s good for us. I would have said Communist, but that term has too much baggage attached to it.

Yes, I wrote my post wrong. Meant to say, socialism is an economic system, democracy is a political system. And that the two were unrelated. And I even thought about including Sweden as an example. This is why I really should review my posts before sending.

For those keeping score at home, Lumpy is referring to:
The Low-Flow Toilets thread.

To lying, cheating, stealing, and drinking.

Always lie to save a friend, cheat death,
steal your love’s heart, and drink with good friends.
—*Madison Michele

Why don’t they limit high-flow lawyers (and politicians) instead. . .or rather just flush them. Too large a flow of bureaucrats also.

Ray (Control AHs and their sphincters, not toilets.)

Lumpy, the broad sense of Socialism that you’re getting at is not this at all. In a true socialist system, the “peasants” ARE the government. Workers control the means of production, and those workers collectively guide the nation in decisions that are best for them all.

I’m aware that the argument has switched to capitalism vs. socialism in the previous posts, which is more proper. Who ever said that the U.S. (or anyplace else) had a purely capitalist economy? I don’t believe there is a single purely capitalist (or purely socialist) economy in the world. The former Soviet Union used capitalist elements to keep its people from going completely insane, and the U.S. has several socialist programs to prevent abuses by capitalists. Ever hear of labor unions? Anti-trust laws?

–Da Cap’n

I am still waiting to hear what the constitutional objection to these laws is?

Mr. Young, I suggest you review the Twenty-Eleventh Amendment which clearly sets forth “Congress shall make no law regarding the water or waste capicity of your basic biffy. We foresee a day when people will have to stand by flushing repeatedly in order to take care of business, so to speak, and we want to avoid that.”

Glad I could help.

I think we need a moving, er, stirring, slogan for the Free Americans Require Toilets movement.

“You can have my high-flush toilet when you pry it from my cold, dead ass?”

“When high-flush toilets are outlawed, only outlaws will have high-flush toilets?”

“A friend will help you move house. A best friend will help you move a body.”–Alexi Sayle


Some Constitutional scholars now believe that Confusion was not really a State yet when it ratified the Twenty-Eleventh. So until Intoxication or Disarray ratify the amendment, Congress does not feel bound to observe it.

Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

I don’t know about other states, but a contractor that builds houses in NC can not install anything but low-flush toilets. HOWEVER, the potential home-buyer can purchase a low-flow toilet and install it themselves. There was a discussion about this very topic on a morning radio show and a store owner who sells toilets among other plumbing supplies called in to quote the very thing.

I have also heard of people driving across the US-Canadian border to purchase the older style toilets in the Great White North.

“Quoth the Raven, ‘Nevermore.’”
E A Poe

This is cool! The restriction of crappers! Basically, because of the pollution of our natural drinking water systems not only by big, uncaring business but over population, pure water is becoming a bit scarce. Purifying it is becoming costly, mainly because the chemical companies have managed to convince those in power that their chemicals do a better job than proven, artificially created, cheap, natural cleansing systems.

So, an effort is being made to conserve water before we run out of it. The toilet uses MUCH water much more often than most other appliances in the general home. People being people, promptly split opinions when the government offered voluntary conservation of water. (Bricks in toilets and so on – some even going so far as to not flush after each use, but after several [ugh!])

There were those who followed the suggestions, but also those who figured that it was their darn water and no one could tell them what to do with their darn stuff and they had the RIGHT to water their lawns in a drought, fill their pools when the city was having water restrictions, and so on. So, the law was passed. It works.

Many cities have passed many other water restricting laws for new housing.

Us Americans, having had it pretty easy in comparison to other nations, feel that we can do as we please. So, some will go to other nations to purchase the old fashioned crappers, being of the opinion that more flushing volume is healthier (it is not) or just because they resent be told what they can or cannot do. (More likely)

It is kind of like no one being allowed into Cuba by American law, so thousands of Americans equipped with American bucks sail to the Bahamas, then enter Cuba ‘legally’ through there as they have no restrictions on trade with Cuba. They WANT to go to Cuba, ignoring the fact that it is controlled by a homicidal, sadistic murdering dictator, because America says they can’t.

As for low flush toilets, sanitation laws require that they provide proper volume to keep things clean. We do have to conserve some things, being far too used to throwing everything away or wasting things in too much volume.

“Think of it as Evolution in action.”

“Homocidal, sadistic dictator”? Too much movie-reel propaganda, dude.


IIRC, while it is illegal to sell (or purchase) a high-flow toilet in the US, it is perfectly legal to bring one in from Canada. According to the noted Constitutional scholar and free trade expert Dave Barry, many Americans who live near the Canadian border make weekend trips to our northern neighbor and bring in high-flow toilets.

Never attribute to malice anything that can be attributed to stupidity.
– Unknown

Ok, I thought this thread was dead, but I guess not…


First, I am still waiting to hear what part of the US Constitution anyone thinks is violated by rules/laws restricting installation of high-flow toilets?

Second, can those among the TM check their respective state codes for the laws on toilet installation? I believe that ‘sale’ of the toilets isn’t what is prohibited, but, rather, installation of them under building codes. Let’s all check for some facts and report back… :wink:

Well, I was waiting with baited breath to hear just what DSYoung wanted to hear, but I got impatient so I decided to take a shot at it myself. I, personally, don’t think any part of the U.S. Constitution is violated by the toilet laws. I think these fall under Congress’ Article I Section 8 “interstate commerce” powers.

However, if you had a narrower view of those powers than I, and a very restrictive view of Congress’ legislative authority (i.e., if the Constitution doesn’t specifically allow it, then Congress can’t do it), then I could see why somebody would feel this law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court hasn’t felt this way since the middle of the New Deal, IIRC.

Needless to say, the absolutely restrictive view of Federal authority would proscribe, among other things, Federal student loans, the Air Force, Food Stamps, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the U.S. Botanical Garden.

“To regulate commerce … among the several states” is a pretty elastic clause, in any case, and I’m curious if the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of it restricts Congress’ power significantly.

Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.

  • Boris Badenov