On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:17:23 Jim Elwell wrote: >If I had any doubts about Eddie/Andy's not being able to digest >simple declarative statements, he has pretty much erased them. In >two emails he asks me why I "don't ask my lawyer." Apparently, >having "consulted my lawyer" does NOT mean I have "consulted my >lawyer" in his fantasy world. > I can't speak for Eddie, Jim, but I suppose that what she means is that you seem to have failed to ask the fundamental, simple question: Does Congress have the fundamental constitutional right to *fix* the SI as the US official system of units??? (The literal text of the constitution says **exactly** that, by the way... ;-) ) Perhaps that's the answer she was expecting you to provide as a result of your consultations with your team of lawyers. >I posted yesterday: > >"AMs will pull out all stops if metric mandates try to force them >to cease the use of colloquial units." > >Marcus writes: > >> 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! > >I disagree. You are combining what were originally two different >topics: mandates either prohibiting colloquial units or requiring >any that are used to be in smaller type, and the issue of >undefining colloquial units. > And again, I'm sorry, but not exactly so, Jim. It seems to me you may be misrepresenting my position. *I*, personally, never said anything about "prohibition". What I said (and probably many in this group, too) and have been defending here is for the US to pass legislation defining the SI as the only official system of units for the US! As a consequence of this legislation it stands to reason that the government may have the right to evidently give SI units *precedence* in labels, may it not? And the second point would be for the government to also consider lifting its support to official definitions of FFU. This should only be a natural consequence of making SI the "only" official system of units for the US, should it not?... I particularly like this "consequence" of the former action. >I stand by my statement: what is happening in England will happen >to a MUCH greater degree in the US, IF we have some kind of >legislation trying to stop the use of colloquial units. > Given that the above legislation would not "stop" anyone from using colloquial units such opposition business would be a moot point! ;-) > >As to the other issues Marcus addresses, I can only say we have >to disagree. It is clear to me there is plenty of legal precedent >to fight metric-only mandates. Apparently it is not clear to >Marcus and possible others. > True, it is certainly not, especially in light of the clear simple wordings of the constitution on this point. Sorry, Jim, but what else can I say, my friend?... However, I find it absolutely critical to mention here that you're most probably overreacting to this whole thing. Making SI the only officially recognized system of units of the US does not necessarily mean people would be prohibited from using FFU, but only that the government would have no responsibility to protect the public against things like fraud if players in the market used such obsolete units to label their products. If after getting rid of making FFU compulsory in labels businesses would still insist on posting labels like "1 Qt (1 L)", fine. If another company makes the same label "33.8 fl oz (1 L)", or "1 Qt 2 fl oz (1 L)", the public would be on their own to complain with manufacturers about such... "discrepancies" in FFU sizes. These manufacturers would only be under the obligation to respond to the metric amount shown in labels. (In this example I'm being "lenient" and considering that the government would not be insisting on the "precedence or preference" business, necessarily). >Marcus does make one statement I will comment on: > >> 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. > >I think you need to validate your premise here. Since when can't >there be a contradiction in constitutional texts? Were the >authors infallible? Did they foresee (or even attempt to foresee) >every instance where rights would conflict? >... True, being that humans are not infallible, there could be contradictions, I'll grant you that, Jim. However, I honestly feel there is none in this case, or put it differently then, if you prefere, they MAY not NECESSARILY be! Or in other words, these amendments CAN be reconciled or harmonized. And if it can be shown that they can, trust me, that's most probably what judges would be more inclined to accept than argumentations of the opposition that would rather put one principle *against* the other and ask judges to make the very uncomfortable and precendent setting decision of choosing one over the other!!! Marcus Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
