Yup, it takes just one legislator to screw things up for many years to come.
Carleton > The same argument could be made against the removal of the metric mandate > from TEA-21. If the mandate had stood, states could have forced county and > local governments to change to metric and thus, remove the major complaint > of contractors. > > Phil > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Bill Potts > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 12:57 PM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:29986] Re: Three Silly Reasons for Not Adopting the Metric > System > > It was originally intended that the Government do all its own procurement > using SI units. If government departments and agencies had followed through > on that, rather than using the loophole that was provided, the country might > be mostly SI by now. > > Bill Potts, CMS > Roseville, CA > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Behalf Of Jim Elwell > >Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 07:55 > >To: U.S. Metric Association > >Subject: [USMA:29985] Re: Three Silly Reasons for Not Adopting the > >Metric System > > > > > >At 26 05 04, 07:58 AM, Terry Simpson wrote: > >>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 > > >
