Don't wait for Jim E. to ask for the government to metricate the U.S.A.
YOU do it!
D.
-----Original Message-----
From: eddie lechat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: June 19, 2001 23:59
Subject: [USMA:13928] Re: Constitutionality
>Gee whiz. Anything announced by the Constitution is
>per se Constitutional, not depending on logic or
>fairness or "substantial government interest."
>
>Sometimes the courts will use this phrase in
>restricting an infringement of some rights protected
>under the Bill of Rights or the 14th amendment.
>
>But we do NOT consider "substantial government
>interest" in deciding whether the words in article 2
>say what they say in article 2.
>
>How in hell this group is ever going to move foward
>with metrication is more than I can see if we are duty
>bound to act polite and say, "Oh, Jim, sure, yes, that
>might be a point."
>
>The Constitution gave Congress the right to mandate
>metrication just as surely and just as clearly as it
>gave Congress the power to declare war or the power to
>coin money or the power to set up a patent office.
>(Actually, the truth is: the power of Congress to
>mandate metrication is even more clear than its power
>to do those other things.)
>--- Barbara and/or Bill Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Jim questions the constitutionality of metric
>> labeling by raising the
>> question of "substantial government interest":
>>
>> > (b) Is the governmental interest substantial?
>> > ...
>> > Item (b) would be a major stumbling block to broad
>> legislation
>> > affecting essentially all commercial products, as
>> it would be
>> > very difficult to argue a government interest in
>> metrication or
>> > metric labeling of many purely-consumer products.
>>
>> I don't see where item (b) is a stumbling block at
>> all.
>>
>> Requiring uniform statements of contents or sizes in
>> a universal measurement
>> language is of interest to the government
>> in promoting better understanding on the part of
>> the public of the products
>> they buy which is certainly related to interstate
>> commerce;
>> promoting foreign trade by assuring that American
>> products are reasonably
>> interchangable with foreign ones and that
>> descriptions of sizes, quantities,
>> etc. are understood by our trading partners (and
>> vice versa);
>> for tax purposes in some cases (where items are
>> taxed on the basis of
>> content sizes), etc.
>>
>> I will agree that it might be difficult to insist
>> that the old, non-metric
>> descriptions should NOT appear since. If the correct
>> metric size is there to
>> meet the law, then the addition of old, non-metric
>> equivalents could be
>> defended on first amendment principles. I think it
>> could be argued that it
>> is constitutional to require the (metric)
>> description to be more prominent
>> than the old non-metric equivalent.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Hooper
>>
>> ============
>> Keep It Simple!
>> Make It Metric!
>> ============
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
