I agree. And I also believe, similarly, that if we had
somebody here who believed the earth to be flat, then
it would help us understand the poor people who
believe such foolishness. The problem is that if we
really intend to metricate America, such discussions
are a damned nuisance and a total waste of time.
Jim Elwell, do you refuse to ask your own lawyer about
your absolutely preposterous theory?
--- Jim Elwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. 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.
>
> 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.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
