No federal agency has jurisdiction on any matters within our homes with the exception only of the following situations.  Government agents may enter if they have a warrant, if they are in direct pursuit of a felon they saw enter the dwelling or by invitation only.  Attempts to dictate matters within a home are denied federal jurisdiction.  State and Local governments through city and county zoning ordinances and building codes may adopt rules for construction and improvement.  They are similarly restricted in their attempts to legally access a persons home or real property as the federal government. 

No federal agency has jurisdiction to dictate matters regarding manufacturing unless it can be demonstrated by scientific method that the quality of the manufactured product constitutes a direct safety hazard.  They may not dictate the specifications of any product based upon energy savings.  The Market shall be left to determine whether a product is or is not in demand and should or should not be manufactured.  On all matters that government currently wishes to impose its will where safety is not a direct issue to either the manufacturer, persons employed by the manufacturer, wholesalers, retailers or consumers, the federal government has no jurisdiction.  Safety issues may only be interpreted to include direct hazard in the intended application of the manufactured product and shall not extend to extended derivatives or calculated harm based upon assumptions or premises that can be easily challenged as improbable or when the manufactured item is not being properly used.

No state or local government shall by city code, zoning ordinance or any other means dictate the use of a person’s property or the rental that may be charged for others to use the property as long as the use itself is not illegal and the owner is compliant with all zoning ordinances. 

All regulations that require warning labels may be voluntary.  No federal agency has the right to require manufacturers to place labels on their product that would warn about the consequences of unintended use.  People will be presumed to be responsible for themselves.    

Argument

Every citizen should be free from the federal government in their own home.  The type of light bulb that individuals wish to use, the type of automobiles they wish to drive, the type of windows they believe they can afford are all beyond the scope of what the government should be allowed to dictate. 

The government should be able to provide mandates if the manufactured product will be transported and sold across state lines or imported from some other country.  In these instances they should only be able to impose their position when a product can be shown to pose a direct safety threat, e.g. asbestos in paint.  They may not impose their position on a safety hazard that results from the improper use of a product, e.g. a child that might chew on a light bulb or attempt to suckle on a statue or a piece of furniture. 

Too often government places themselves in a position to apply rent controls on landlords.  Where it is reasonable that landlords maintain their property and when they don’t maintain their property the courts may  provide recourse to the tenant, it is never proper for any government authority to dictate the rent the landlord may request. 

Warning labels have bordered upon foolish and because they are so foolish, the real warnings a manufacturer might wish to identify on a product, e.g. poisonous, avoid contact with eyes, etc., are diluted when people have to be told they should not wrap their heads with the cleaner's plastic bag, they should not let their kids eat the cleaning supplies or they should not stick a heated curling iron in their mouth.