On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:51:41 Jim Elwell wrote: >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. Just a point of order here to clarify that the last suggestion that was being vehicled here said NOTHING about "*forcing* people to *cease* the use of colloquial units"! What was being said is that the government would cease to support colloquial units definitions! It would simply remove any and all reference that might exist to state *legally* that 1 inch = 25.4 mm, etc, etc. In other words, it will no longer care if someone comes with a new definition of the inch, for instance. On the other hand (more below)... 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. > Any legislation that states that SI is the only officially *defined* system for measurements in the US, given the action taken above, should not stir that much controversy if any and all requirements to make the use of ifp compulsory is removed. I.e. if people continue to insist on using them, fine, they could do so (but don't count on the government to protect you if people, businesses, etc, decide to use different definitions for what an ounce is...). The law would simply state that metric units would be the only accepted parameters of reference for official purposes in the US. I'd like to believe that such type of legislation could be quite successful after all. >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. > Sure, people can try to read it differently and all, but would the "legal precedent" you're alluding to hold any water in the end if push comes to shove? That's the part that many of us are skeptical about. But your concerns are well taken and noted. Also, you're right about your last statement. We have to be ready to counteract such attempts by the enemy to undermine metrication legislation pieces. Good point, Jim! >(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. > ? Fine, please bring those texts on and let's see if we're talking about the same thing here. In any case, since there can't be contradiction in the constitutional texts, it stands to reason that there would be very few possible interpretations that could harmonize those 2 amendments that have been discussed here. In other words, I'd venture say that fixing the SI as the only officially accepted system for the US should not contradict freedom of speech after all. Again, it goes to choice as a prerogative and right of the US government to do so. Noone can oblige them to choose other units as "acceptable" and/or officially defined. >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. > Again, we're not talking about "prohibition" here, but to treat feet, inches and other crap the same way cubits, efas, ells, etc are! Nothing more, nothing less! Let the law state nothing about any of them. >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. > You're absolutely right. That's why that idea of lifting official definitions for ifp units might just be what we need and are looking for to settle this for once and for all! >Jim Elwell > >P.S. Clarification: the four-point criteria from the USSCt I >posted on >Sunday is a paraphrase. I'll post the exact wording tomorrow so >you can >judge for yourself if I paraphrased accurately. > Fine, please do so, even though I felt you did a terrific job on summarizing them! :-) Best Regards, Marcus Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
