Rigell: I voted ‘NO’ to a Violation of States’ Rights
By Guest Post | Wednesday, July 13th, 2011 | PolicyBy Congressman Scott Rigell
The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act that was voted on yesterday afternoon presented a real dilemma not only for me, but for some other conservatives well. Here’s the issue I was faced with: The bill would repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs – which is something I strongly support and want to see happen.
But in studying it carefully I concluded it also contained a flaw which made it unconstitutional. It went beyond a simple repeal when it prohibited any state or local entity from imposing standards that could be met by bulbs containing mercury. It was in reading that provision, a federal limitation on what kind of bulb that a state or locality could restrict, that my alarm bell went off. The paternalistic, power-centric culture of Congress had, to my surprise and great disappointment, burrowed its way into the bill.
As I see, it if the residents of, let’s just pick San Francisco, through their city council, decide they want to prohibit incandescent bulbs, they not only should have that right, they DO have that right. It is clearly articulated in the 10th Amendment to our Constitution.
This language restricting the rights of states and localities was not needed to accomplish the repeal and should not have been added. So an otherwise solid bill – one that fully aligns with my core values and mission while I have the privilege to serve the 2nd district – became one that I had to vote against.
In our relentless effort to contain and rollback an overly intrusive, hyper-active federal government, we must not unwittingly breach our Constitution. We must not be guilty of that which we so fiercely object. We must be vigilant, and fully consistent, in returning power from Washington to the states and localities – to the People.
I mentioned that I was not the only conservative who struggled with this vote. Being strongly in favor of the repeal and knowing that many would misinterpret the vote as support for big government when just the opposite is true, it was not easy pushing the red “NO” button when I voted. I respect and appreciate those conservatives who voted with me – there were a few – and I respect and appreciate those conservatives who did not. My hope is that another bill that repeals the ban on incandescent light bulbs makes its way to the floor this year, one that is narrow in scope and is unquestionably constitutional.
On that bill you can mark me down as enthusiastic “YES” vote.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
23 Responses to "Rigell: I voted ‘NO’ to a Violation of States’ Rights"
Wow… a Congressman that reads legislation he votes on and can explain his vote.
My dearest Congressman,
Bullsh*t
cheers
Oh my goodness; the future of our nation is at risk from the republican house’s failure to participate in good faith negotiations with the Senate and the President on raising the debt ceiling, and Rigell is talking about light bulbs. You really can’t make this stuff up. Rigell is so divorced from the reality faced by 98% of his constituents who will be harmed by the failure of the Congress to raise the debt limit, but his focus is on a $0.56 light bulb. May I ask, as one of your constituents, that he put our interests first and focus on the important matter at hand? Is that too much to ask? If you won’t respond to us, won’t you respond to the overwhelming warning from the U.S Chamber of Commerce, and business executives who have warned of the dire effects of putting this nation back into recession. Scott, please, focus.
Applause to Scott for his vote. While unconstitutional Congressional action can always be tested in the courts, it is better that unconstitutional it is better that such acts are nipped in the bud without the need of throwing it to the courts.
I am not a fan of Scott Rigell (I voted for Glenn Nye) however on this vote I think he got it right in honoring the Constitution. My praise might be hard won, but when it is deserved I need to honest as well and give praise to those who deserve it.
ROFL
Mike Barrett,
It is true that more important issues need to be dealt with in the House. However the Republican controlled House made their position clear on where they stand on raising the debt limit. In the mean time it is unreasonable to expect them to sit on their hands and not deal with other issues.
Perhaps your point is that it is extremely foolish to worry just how full your gas tank is right before you drive off the cliff? OK, you got me there.
I guess my point is that they participated in a coup, and set their direction, but since then, there has been universal condemnation of their position from almost all sides. As a result, more americans are tuned in to just what default really means. It means medicare checks will be held, social security checks are at risk, paychecks to federal employees, including DoD and our troops, may not go out, many parts of the government will close, checks from the Feds to states will be interrupted, and the international financial system will be at risk and we could plunge back into recession. Even if it was resolved a few days after the deadline, the last time this occured, actually by accident, and the U.S. failed to pay bondholders on time, rates went up 60 basis points, and did not come down within six months. Once you get a bad credit rating, it hands around. And instead of dealing with this, they pass a bill about light bulbs, showing their disdain for those of us on Main Street. Deplorable.
Mike,
According to the polls, the majority of Americans are still against raising the debt limit. The polls are so confusing that I can only come to the realization that the average American voter is confused.
Just like the cock is sure to crow in the morning, the voter is sure to wake up once the sun rises.
Yes, if the question is posed in a vacuum. However, if it is asked after the questioner relays the effects of default, 80% of the respondents say we need to ensure default does not occur. You are correct, most don’t know the effects until they are described. One thing is absolutely clear; if we default, the american people will in large measure blame the republicans who have simply given up.
Mike, your are spewing crap again:
Sourced from: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/washington-gets-200-billion-month-social-security-costs-50-billio
Here are the facts, as reported by MarketWatch and the Bipartisan Policy Center. You do the math:
* The federal government receives approximately $200 billion in revenues each month.
* Interest on the national debt in August will be approximately $29 billion. (bond holders)
* Social Security will cost about $49. 2 billion.
* Medicare and Medicaid will cost about $50 billion.
* Active duty military pay will cost about $2.9 billion.
* Veterans affairs programs will cost about $2.9 billion.
The amount left is $39B which Geithner will have to prioritize between:
* Defense vendors
* IRS refunds
* Food stamps and welfare
* Unemployment benefits
* Department of Education
* Department of Housing and Urban Development
* Department of Justice, etc. etc.
Basically, not raising the debt limit is a “balanced budget” and will force the administration to get some experience in setting up rationing schemes like they will do with health care to determine who gets what and how much.
Well thank you Tim J for making my point. Anyone involved with cash management knows that obligations don’t come in regularly nor do revenues either. The point is, a government shut down of some or most functions, and disruptions in entitlement payments, and possible defaults in debt payments may occur. The fact that you know this, and countenance it, is an indication of your extreme view; that is, you could care less if we gain the reputation as a nation that does not meet its obligations. Most americans will he horrified by that occurence and will blame Cantor and the majority in the House.
Mike, in your “chicken little” scenario, Obama will blame Cantor et.al. The “majority” of us will blame Obama, Geithner and the Democrats for choosing to push Granny off their cliff. I’m glad you agree that with the $39B left, Geithner and Obama can “ration” funding for the Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Justice, etc., etc. A much better idea is to “not let this crisis go to waste” so that fiscally responsible Republicans can start drowning these useless parasites in the Democrat’s own bathtub.
Tim,
As a truck driver, I pay 24.4 cents per gallon in taxes on diesel. Under your scenario will I be left competing to get what I paid for? My experience is that the highway infrastructure is bad enough already without choking off the inadequate funding it receives now.
Again, Geithner will decide how funding will be prioritized. If highway infrastructure is important to the Administration, it will get its share of funding. Hard choices for hard times.
Perhaps Tim J you would simply never agree with my point of view, and herein describe it as the chicken little scenario. However, this afternoon, the minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said essentially what I and many others have said, and he warned his republican colleagues that they will be blamed for this by the american people, and the party will suffer the results. So, don’t listen to me; listen to the leaders of your own party.
I was wondering when I saw the no vote listed in the paper. A good and principled vote. It makes me think there may just be hope for the Republic.
Yesterday, Mitch McConnell said that a deal wasn’t possible with Obama. Today, as you said, he warned Republicans about blame fallout. He’s another political windbag-vane that doesn’t know which direction he’s pointing. Until he finds his way, he belongs in the back of the Obama “bus” since he is putting re-election politics in front of leadership.
“As I see, it if the residents of, let’s just pick San Francisco, through their city council, decide they want to prohibit incandescent bulbs, they not only should have that right, they DO have that right. It is clearly articulated in the 10th Amendment to our Constitution.”
Bingo. What earthly authority does the Federal Gov’t have regulating light bulbs?
Thanks Tim J for revealing what more and more americans have come to see. There really is no longer a republican party; there is a far right conservative party which is the home of extremists, ideologues, and libertarians who would rather the nation put itself into default, closure, and civil unrest, than actually sit down, negotiate, and compromise. You will dismiss any republican who tells the truth; that is, for the good of the nation, and the good of the republican party, get the best deal you can, but compromise now and move on. Keep listening to the extremists and thankfully, we won’t have to listen to you for much longer.
I’m “clinging to my guns and religion”… Come and get me!
Congressman Rigell: As if anyone cares.
Here is a good response for all of you pro-choice people, oh, excuse me, only pro-choice when it comes to abortion:
http://videos2view.net/smackdown.htm.
When I first saw Scott Rigell’s name on the list of saying no to this bill I was truly angry. Thus far he had stayed true to what he said in his campaign and was pretty consistent in his voting record to this point. Maybe I suffer from cant trust government itis even when they are brand new, but after reading this article if I research and find what he is saying to be true not only will I not be mad I will commend Rep. Rigell for a truly brave vote.
For those that argue that this issue of incadescent light bulbs legality is not a big issue you are right. In itself the issue is not world changing, but loss of freedom rarely is. Its like when you want to cook a crab. Do you throw him in the pot of hot water? No you throw him in cool to luke warm water and gradually increase the temperature or they’ll jump out and make quite a mess. There is also a saying where “they came for the ____ and I said nothing, they came for the _____ and I still said nothing so that when they came for me I had noone to help me.” Both of these apply to this situation.
Leave your response