| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Lightbulb Revolt Begins In Arizona |
| 2010-02-21 |
| Frank Antenori's idea is as bright as a 100-watt lightbulb. And it's lighting up conversations at the Capitol over states' rights and the role of the federal government. In proposing that Arizona become the national epicenter of incandescent-lightbulb manufacturing, the Tucson Republican hopes to provoke a fight with Washington, D.C., over states' rights and interstate trade. He's picked what he believes is an inoffensive field of battle: A glass bulb with a tungsten filament. It's a new twist on a national trend that involves a Montana gun law that 23 other states, including Arizona, are mimicking this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The premise is that by providing that guns manufactured in a given state are not sent over state boundaries, the federal government has no right to impose regulations, such as gun registration. Knowing the firestorm that gun regulation can inspire, the freshman lawmaker decided to dial down the emotion and use lightbulbs as his weapon of choice in a states'-rights push. "It's kind of like the Montana gun bill, but not as angry," Antenori said of House Bill 2337. "You can't get too (angry) with lightbulbs. You don't shoot people with lightbulbs." But he hopes perhaps you can sue if the federal government insists that a phase-out of incandescent-bulb sales applies to Arizona. The federal Energy Independence and Security Act, signed into law by then-President George W. Bush, imposes new efficiency standards beginning in 2012. It bans the sale of the most widely used incandescent bulbs, those ranging from 40 watts to 100 watts. The idea is to move the country toward compact-fluorescent lightbulbs and LEDs, which consume less energy. The federal law is "touchy-feely legislation," Antenori told a House panel earlier this month. He said it will expose consumers to the mercury in CFLs, as well as kill jobs, because no one makes them in the United States. But those are side arguments. As with the gun bills being introduced from Arizona to New Hampshire, Antenori's lightbulb bill aims to assert a state's rights. "The real intent of this legislation is to challenge the federal mandate in court," he told the House Commerce Committee. "We could make history by having the (U.S.) Supreme Court rule that the federal government overstepped its bounds." The committee approved the bill on a 5-1 vote, although there were several arched eyebrows. "I think it's more of a statement than a practicality," said Rep. Frank Pratt, R-Casa Grande. The bill is awaiting a hearing before the Rules Committee, which checks whether it is constitutional. Antenori said he consulted with attorneys before introducing his bill and believes he is on solid legal ground. "The Founding Fathers had never intended to control commerce in lightbulbs," he said. His bill is following in the tracks of the Arizona's manufactured-firearms bill, introduced by Rep. Nancy McLain, R-Kingman. Her measure, House Bill 2307, is Arizona's version of the Montana gun bill. It's awaiting a formal vote of the full House while attorneys research whether the sale-in-Arizona-only provisions exempt the state from the federally required background check on gun buyers. McLain, like Antenori, said her bill's intent is to assert states' rights. Antenori said he thinks making the lightbulb the point of contention might illuminate the states'-rights issue in a kinder, gentler way, while creating fewer ripples in the Legislature. But it's already exasperated some lawmakers. "We have more pressing matters," Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said during debate. The various bills and resolutions that seek to irritate the federal government are counterproductive, especially as the state grapples with a fiscal crisis, he said. If the bill falters, Antenori is ready with his second line of defense: Low-flow toilets and mandates to save water. YEE-HAW! I have a new role model. I like this guy! |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #5 The premise is that by providing that guns manufactured in a given state are not sent over state boundaries, the federal government has no right to impose regulations, such as gun registration. This argument didn't do anything for California marijuana growers. Back in the '90s there was a referendum on legalizing marijuana (this might have been just for medical reasons; I forget), which passed. Federal gummint said: not so fast. Some of that pot might end up somewhere else, so we're still asserting jurisdiction. California attorney general said he was still going to prosecute, despite the law, nyeah nyeah. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2010-02-21 16:44 |
| #4 As I've said before, I've been stockpiling them for years. I'm gonna make a killin' on the Black Market. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2010-02-21 13:24 |
| #3 "We have more pressing matters," Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix Yes you probably do. However, even Las Vegas wouldn't take a bet that you consider and even pass stuff that doesn't even reach this level of legislation during the session, not counting the pork passed in face of ever dropping revenue. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-02-21 11:10 |
| #2 Speaking of femtoviolins: Al: Bud, sit down. Let me tell you the story of the Ferguson. Now these babies were made in Maine, you know, at the little Ferguson factory. It's the Stradivarius of toilets. And my Dad could play it like a violin. Yup, I'll never forget the time my dad took me to Maine to visit the factory. I had to go to the bathroom. And I begged him to pull into a truck stop. He said no, wait until we get there! It'll be worth it! It was! |
| Posted by: badanov 2010-02-21 11:08 |
| #1 But it's already exasperated some lawmakers. Who's got the femtoviolin? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2010-02-21 10:52 |