I am no expert in legalities but I can bet you that one can call it a "mouthfull" if
he wants. This is the portion of what Jim Elwell was clarifying as having to do with
the freedom of speech. One cannot forbind anybody of saying anything about his
products in order to sell them.
The only legally binding statement is the metric one on the bottom of the can.
Anything elese is irrelevant.
Regulations are made only in specific areas like weights & measures, nutrition facts,
etc. These are considered to be serving the consumer's interest.
It is no fantasy, this is probably the only way a democratic government can regulate a
transit to metric. Forbidding anything generates a lot of animosity in any democratic
country. The forbidding part comes only after the large majority has accepted the new
system, it is then perceived as a logical step.
A>
-----Original Message-----
From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:10:36 -0400
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [USMA:14198] Re: Constitutionality
> 2001-07-08
>
> If Calibrators had only metric masses for calibrating scales and had to
> calibrate a non-metric device, it would be interesting to note if these
> services would charge a premium to compensate for their time and efforts to
> have convert their data. Maybe if enough people had to pay more for the
> privilege of using non-metric they might get the urge to convert.
>
> Then again, that could be just a fantasy.
>
> As for Canada, I don't think it is illegal to sell a 3.8 L can of paint, but
> it is illegal to call it a gallon. The legal Canadian (Imperial) gallon,
> although no longer used (maybe) is equal to about 4.5 L. This is the only
> amount that can be called "gallon" in Canada. I'm not sure if stating that
> the gallon is of the US variety would be acceptable or not.
>
> Maybe someone from Canada can clarify this.
>
> John
>
> Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrt�mlich glaubt
> frei zu sein.
>
> There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
> are free!
>
> Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adrian Jadic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, 2001-07-08 02:29
> Subject: [USMA:14184] Re: Constitutionality
>
>
> > I am well behind my reading of the USMA messages. However, I have to thank
> Jim Elwell for this message which did in fact start some "battles".
> >
> > I honnestly beleive that everything in his review is correct which tells
> us that the way to go is SI first and legally binding.
> >
> > I do beleive though that legislation making the instruments of measurement
> "legal for trade" (as they are called in Canada for example) could be
> enacted to require calibration through metric standards only.
> >
> > To be more specific this would mean that the guy that comes to calibrate
> scales in a plant or a store would have only metric certified weights. This
> is justifiable simply by the fact that only those references can be truly
> traced to national and international standards.
> >
> > The government may not have the power to dictate to the store what units
> he may use to sell its products but it does have the power to decide what
> references the calibrator should use through it's certifications programs
> (NIST). Consequently, many traders may prefere to sell in SI simply because
> they cannot otherwise calibrate their scales. Note here that some scales do
> accept SI units for calibration and "whateveryourhartdesires" for display.
> >
> > I still see this as a step forward.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > PS> This is basically, getting to think of it, the system in Canada.
> Nobody "forbids" the use of ifp nor the advertizing in ifp. In fact I
> beleive that dual labelling is allowed. The calibrators have only SI devices
> and the SI labelling is the only legal one. Paint is still sold by the
> gallon in stores labelled "3.8 L (One US gallon)". Also, there is no
> requirement for even numbers other than practicality.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:46:11 -0600
> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [USMA:13849] Constitutionality
> >
> >
> > > I really don't wish to start another battle with certain uncivil
> > > persons, but I think the list members should be aware of the info
> > > below.
> > >
> > > In short, I have retained some legal advisors to look into the
> > > question of constitutionality of various metrication schemes.
> > > Their conclusion:
> > >
> > > (a) legislation which *requires* the use of metric units in
> > > commercial products would probably be sustained in the face of
> > > any court challenge (i.e. requiring dual-labeling is OK, probably
> > > even primary-metric labeling);
> > >
> > > (b) legislation which broadly *prohibits* the use of colloquial
> > > units would face serious problems with the first amendment (which
> > > applies to some degree even to commercial speech), and
> > >
> > > (c) legislation broadly requiring "rational size" packaging or
> > > sizing of commercial products would have very little chance of
> > > being sustained in the courts.
> > >
> > > The brief I was provided is long and full of legal jargon and
> > > dozens of case references; here is my (relatively) short summary:
> > >
> > > ***************** start
> > >
> > > Even where the government has broader regulatory powers (e.g.,
> > > alcohol), it has been reigned in on labeling requirements. The
> > > primary case of interest is the U.S. Supreme Court, Rubin v.
> > > Coors, 1995, where the BATF tried to prevent Coors from putting
> > > alcohol percentage on beer packaging. The BATF lost, as it could
> > > not show any substantial government interest being served.
> > >
> > > The Court leaned heavily on Central Hudson Gas & Electric v.
> > > Public Service Commission (447 US 557 1980), where the Court set
> > > out a four-part analysis of regulation of commercial speech:
> > >
> > > (a) Is the expression protected by the First Amendment? For
> > > commercial speech to be so protected, it must (i) concern lawful
> > > activity, and (ii) not be misleading.
> > >
> > > (b) Is the governmental interest substantial?
> > >
> > > (c) Does the regulation advance the government interest?
> > >
> > > (d) Is the regulation more extensive than necessary to serve the
> > > interest?
> > >
> > > Item (a) is generally applicable, as we are not dealing with
> > > legislation primarily aimed at controlling illegal or fraudulent
> > > activities.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Item (c) would be mostly moot, since (b) is not addressed
> > > adequately. Where the government could get by (b), it would have
> > > to show that the regulation *does* advance its interest.
> > > Presumably where a governmental interest in metrication can be
> > > shown, the legislation should be able to pass muster on this
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > Item (d) would apply where the government could show a
> > > substantial interest in a certain product arena, and that the
> > > regulation advances that interest. The courts would then analyze
> > > the regulations to see if they are the least restrictive that
> > > would address the government interests.
> > >
> > > An interesting case is United States v. Edge Broadcasting Company
> > > (509 US 418 1993), which clearly shows this process of analyzing
> > > "least restrictive." In this case, a ban on lottery advertising
> > > was upheld, because an Edge radio station's signal clearly went
> > > into states that prohibited the lottery. The government's
> > > interest (in this case, the state government's) was clear, and no
> > > lesser-restrictive remedy could be found. However, the Court was
> > > clear that the ban did *not* apply to stations that could only be
> > > heard within the state that ran the lottery.
> > >
> > > Regarding the rational-packaging issue, there is very little
> > > precedent for such legislation (if it broadly covers commercial
> > > products), and it would be very difficult to show a *government*
> > > interest served by such legislation.
> > >
> > > **************** end
> > >
> > > In thinking about this last issue, the example that keeps coming
> > > to my mind is toothpaste: what *government* interest could
> > > possibly be served by requiring toothpaste to be sold in even,
> > > rational metric units?
> > >
> > > Some of you may be discouraged by this. I would suggest that
> > > NOTHING HAS CHANGED. As Duncan Bath (I believe) pointed out a
> > > couple of weeks ago, the chance of the US Federal Government
> > > passing any broad-reaching metrication legislation is very slim
> > > at this time. So, we have the exact same means at our disposal
> > > now as we have had all along: education, proselytizing, letters
> > > to government officials, letters to editors, etc.
> > >
> > > If you review my post "USMA:13217] What to metricate" you will
> > > see numerous steps we can take to help metricate the US. Only the
> > > last few would touch on issues of constitutionality.
> > >
> > > In reading the whole brief, I have to admit to a bit of a boost
> > > to my libertarian beliefs. In numerous instances the Courts were
> > > quite adamant in pushing government attorneys on the issues of
> > > "is this *really* a government interest?"; "is this the *least
> > > restrictive* way of addressing the issue?"; etc.
> > >
> > > Jim Elwell
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> > <A HREF="http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup"; TARGET="_new"><FONT
>COLOR="BLUE">http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup</FONT></A>
> >
> > FREE PC-to-Phone calls with Net2Phone
> > <A HREF="http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?121"; TARGET="_new"><FONT
>COLOR="BLUE">http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?121</FONT></A>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
_______________________________________________
FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
FREE PC-to-Phone calls with Net2Phone
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?121
