Elwell continues with messages which denigrate our
efforts and which are absolutely an incorrect
construction of the Constitution.
Why scold me for objecting? Why not scold Elwell for
using this list to promote untrue information?
--- Duncan Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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/
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
