No, not true. You would not have filed any such
lawsuit because not one lawyer in the entire U.S.,
even if paid in advance, would have been willing to
take on such a ridiculous law suit.
Please, USMA folks, please! Read what Elwell says.
Read down to the end. Elwell is NOT for metrication.
He is as eloquent an enemy as we will find.
Of course Congress can deal with these phase in
problems, if Congress chooses. Congress could pass a
law NOW which declares metric to be the only system of
measure in the U.S. as of 8 years from now.
But there is no way forward without Congress.
Anyone claiming to be for metric, but not for action
by Congress, is just too silly to participate in a
real discussion about metrication. There is no such
thing as voluntary metrication.
Look at what Elwell said. He basically opposes metric.
--- Jim Elwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Potts, you write with much tolerance and
> wisdom. Thank you. And thanks
> to Jim Frysinger for his lucid and rational
> comments.
>
> To Andy and Eddie and any others who cannot
> understand how I support
> metriccation, but do not support mandated metric,
> all I can say is: think!!
> Not everything that is "good" can be, should be or
> will ever be mandated. I
> posted an analogy twice (on exercising) -- none of
> you who don't understand
> my thinking have made any attempt to show any errors
> in the logic.
>
> As to the Constitution, I will cease posting, as I
> seem to be incapable of
> getting some of you past the literal language of a
> half-dozen words in
> Section 8. I have never argued that these words
> cannot be interpreted, in
> isolation, as list members want them to be. My
> effort has been to point out
> that there are other interpretations and other
> sections of the Constitution
> that are involved, and that these other
> interpretations and sections will be
> used by anti-metricationists to try and get courts
> to invalidate any
> substantive metrication laws.
>
> One last thought on the Constitution: if, ten years
> ago (before I metricated
> my company), Congress had passed a law mandating
> metric-only products within
> a short time (say, two or three years), I would have
> filed a lawsuit based
> on the "takings" clause (5th amendment), because it
> would have destroyed the
> value of several injection molds worth over
> $200,000. If such a law passed
> today, my company won't suffer, but you can bet that
> a significant number of
> the 15 million or so businesses in the country will,
> and they will file such
> lawsuits.
>
> Finally, ignoring the Constitution, how many of you
> really think a person
> should have their life's savings destroyed and/or be
> thrown in jail because
> they prefer to label a box in pounds?
>
> Jim Elwell
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
