"Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Subject: [USMA:13904] Legal Opinions > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:51:41 -0600 > From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Several of you (Marcus, Bill, Carleton) have posted arguing with > the legal > opinion I posted. Please consider (AM is shorthand for > "anti-metricationist"): > > (1) For all the anti-metric fervor in England, there will > probably be 10 > times that in the USA. AMs will pull out all stops if metric > mandates try to > force them to cease the use of colloquial units. All I have been > trying to > say for weeks now is that, if such legislation gets passed, it > WILL be > challenged in court, and the AM's MAY win. > > You keep trying to argue with me about constitutionality, etc. I > fully > understand how YOU read the constitution. That's fine. What you > seem to be > refusing to do is understand that others WILL read it > differently, and there > is plenty of legal precedent for doing so. If you do not accept > this, you > are refusing to understand the enemy, which is a pretty poor way > to win a > war. > > (2) Rather than address each of the points you bring up > individually, I'm > going to suggest you reread the four criteria the US Supreme > Court uses to > judge whether a restriction on commercial speech is > constitutional (I'm at > home today, so I don't have the exact reference; I posted the > email on > Sunday.) > > Then remember this: those words are NOT mine, they are NOT from > my legal > advisors, they are NOT uninformed opinions. They are from the > United States > Supreme Court. They outline the case-law precedent the USSCt uses > to ensure > that regulations on commercial speech are not unconstitutional. > > So, if you question whether the concept of the government having > a > "significant interest" in legislation is a reasonable > requirement, you are > questioning not me, not my attorneys, but the US Supreme Court. > > If you argue that "cubits" are not allowed so we should be able > to prohibit > the use of "feet", imagine yourself in front of nine skeptical > justices > trying to explain the "government's interest" in prohibiting the > use of a > unit of measure that has been extensively used for hundreds of > years. > > For those who favor mandated metrication, by having someone such > as me on > this list you get a much better "window" into how the AMs will > think. Rather > than trying to change my mind, I suggest you start thinking > about > strategies to counteract that kind of thinking. Even if I die > today, you > will have to deal with it. Don't forget that power specifically delegated to Congress by the US Constitution, namely: Article. I. Section. 8. "The Congress shall have Power to... (paragraph 5) ...fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" My read on that section is that Congress *CAN* outlaw, for use in commerce, any units it wants to at any time on the basis that they are or are not part of the USA's legal 'standard'. Simply repeal the legal 'standard' for 'Olde Englishe' units. Yes, the politics of such a move could indeed be 'messy', but under that section, such a law SHOULD be upheld by the US Supreme Court. It will solely be a POLITICAL decision. Now, whether such 'standard' can include references to whether any legal units must be in RATIONAL QUANTITIES, I will agree that that is another question altogether. Yes, there are genuine 1st Amendment questions regarding the regulation of MANY areas of 'commercial speech', but this one appears to be pretty much cut and dried to me. h -- ____________________________________________________________________________ Regards, Michael G. Koerner Appleton, WI ____________________________________________________________________________
