At 4 October 2005, 10:03 AM, Bill Hooper wrote:
I can't agree with Jim's conclusion that the US federal government
has not authority to mandate metric measurement. I believe it does,
in the clause of the constitution that gives it the power to
"establish a system of weights and measures".
With all due respect, Bill, one cannot take a lay person's (meaning
you and me) reading of this constitutional clause and surmise its implications.
Any competent lawyer can easily argue things such as (a) the clause
allows establishment of a system (done about 200 years ago) but not
CHANGING the system, or (b) the clause means Congress can define (for
example) a kilogram and a pound, but not mandate use of one or
another, or (c) the law prohibits multiple systems ("a system") so we
cannot add to our current imperial one, or (d) it conflicts with and
is superseded by the first amendment (free speech).
I am not saying any of these are right or wrong, only that there are
multiple reasonable interpretations, and unless you study the case
law surrounding any particular clause of the constitution, you cannot
really know its legal meaning.
As specific evidence, I refer you to Rubin v. Coors (1995). There is
a one-page synopsis of it at:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1631.ZS.html
You can read the html version of the full case at:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1631.ZO.html
Somewhat related: being in business, I deal with attorneys quite a
bit. I never cease to be amazed at how differently the law views
things than how a lay person might. Just three days ago (Tuesday) I
got a tongue-lashing from our IP attorney over a single sentence in a
non-disclosure agreement we signed with a major company. Our attorney
wrote it, their attorney changed a few words, I said "sounds ok."
Turns out that I didn't have a clue what the legal impact of those
few words was, and now we are trying to fix a real problem.
Jim
Jim Elwell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
801-466-8770
www.qsicorp.com
