I was going to give my naive response to Jim, quoting our beloved Article I, Section 8, about fixing the standard, until I read Jim's reasoning. I would agree that the fleshing out of the law is not what it seems to me, a non-lawyer. It reminds me of my reaction to something I just read in USA Today, from Georgia.
A federal judge recently struck down Georgia's requirement for citizens to show a government ID card to vote, because the judge felt that such a requirement constitutes the levying of a poll tax (prohibited under the 24th Amendment, no "poll tax or other tax."). I think this is a very footloose interpretation of that amendment; I always thought that a poll tax has to be pretty explicit in order to qualify as such. That is, here is your tax bill, you must pay $X before you can go in and vote. But, I suppose that, depending on the judge, a poll tax can be interpreted as any financial obstacle. I guess I've never felt entitled to--pardon my description, lawyers--distort ideas that way. But, I suppose that can be done in the law. Call me a strict constructionist, I guess. But, I also notice that the 24th amendment applies only to federal elections.I wonder if the judge stated in his decision that IDs could be required for Georgia elections. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 11:49 Subject: [USMA:35162] Re: Government conversion mandates > 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 is superseded by the first amendment (free speech).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 > >
