IF CONGRESS WERE SO INSPIRED AS TO VOTE THAT METRIC IS
NOW THE ONLY LEGAL AND OFFICIAL SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND
MEASURES IN THE U.S., THERE WOULD BE ACTION EVER TAKEN
BY CONGRESS IN 240 YEARS MORE PERFECTLY PROTECTED BY
THE CONSTITUTION AND LESS LIKELY OF SERIOUS LEGAL
ATTACK.
That this group continues to act as though there is
some merit in Jim's observations is perplexing.
Let me ask this:
Why would anyone be in this group if you actually
believe that there might be something unconstitutional
about metrication? Are you guys all traitors? Of
course not.
The post to which I respond reflects exactly and
precisely the awful awful harm Jim is doing. Folks who
thought they were for metric now seem to think that
they have a duty to be polite as Jim goes on about
metrication being unconstitutional.
Please I hope that nobody here believes the stuff Jim
says. But if you do, then I do not understand why at
that moment you wouldn't give up on metrication.
Why are you here if you believe Jim that it is
unconstitutional (and undesirable) for Congress to
act?
--- Barbara and/or Bill Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I think Eddie has misunderstood something that
> someone has written here.
> Perhaps that someone was me.
>
> Eddie claims that other members of this list have
> said that Jim Elwell has a
> valid point about mandated metric conversion being
> unconstitutional. That's
> not correct. I have not read anything in the
> discussion on this list in
> which anyone has said that.
>
> Now I believe i did say that Jim had a valid point
> on a different but
> related issue. I believe I may have said that Jim
> had a valid point when he
> said that, because there are other people (besides
> Jim himself) who believe
> mandated metrication is unconstitutional, that when
> Congress passes such
> mandating legislation there will be many legal
> actions taken in the courts
> to try to overturn the legislation. Eddie, don't you
> agree there really are
> some metric opponents who would turn to the courts
> to try to prevent
> metrication if Congress passed such a law?
>
> I think Congress should pass the legislation anyway.
> But, if there really
> might be massive laws suits aganst it, there might
> be some other actions
> that should be taken (in addition to the metric
> legislation) to prevent the
> legal action against it (or at least make sure that
> metric proponents win
> the court battles).
>
> Is this point important or minor? I'm not sure. But
> it is a "valid point"
> and Jim Elwell raised it.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Hooper
>
> > From: eddie lechat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [USMA:13116] Re: Pulling Together (was
> Jim Elwell on wrong list)
> >
> > Elwell claims that Constitution prohibits
> > fixing the metric system as our standard.
> >
> > And several people here say, "Hm, Well, you know,
> > maybe Elwell has a valid point."
> >
> > This troubles me.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
