When you say 'mandating metrication', do you actually mean 'forbidding non-metric'. I can see that forbidding non-metric units on beer labels might bring up similar legal issues to that case. But 'mandating metric units' on beer (or any other product) labels has no parallels with that case that I can see. Presumably if it did, it might be possible to argue that the current and proposed versions of the FPLA are also unconstitutional.
This is an excellent question and perceptive reading of the Coors case.
It is likely that where the US government already has regulatory powers (e.g., food and alcohol), they can get away with mandating inclusion of metric units. It is less likely they can get away with prohibiting non-metric units. Requiring "rational" package sizes has happened in highly-regulated areas (e.g., alcohol), but would likely be struck down if attempted more broadly.
However, where the government has no regulatory powers, which covers a lot of economic activity, albeit much of it non-consumer, it is less clear that even mandating inclusion of metric labeling might not be allowed, since if there are currently no regulatory powers, it is tough to argue there is a legitimate government interest.
Of course, the way it SHOULD be (and what would happen if I were King) is that the entirety of weights and measures legislation would be something like "Any weights & measures used must be well defined (fine print here), and fraudulent use would be punishable."
Then metric would win over time, as it is the better system, and there would be no "metric police" out there destroying peoples' lives for perfectly peaceful and non-fraudulent activities.
Jim
Jim Elwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-466-8770 www.qsicorp.com
