When Elwell goes on about the unconstitutionality of
metrication, the question ought not to be why I
object. The question ought to be: why do others just
sit on your hands and let him destroy your effort? Are
you scared of him? Does he own you? What is it?
--- 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/
