Paul, Not to nitpick (I'm just doing it for the interesting conversation) but there are no "federal" elections. While the office of president and vice-president are federal offices, the elections themselves are state elections. Remember, we elect electors at the state level to cast ballots for the appropriate candidate. The original intent in the Constitution was that representatives were "of the people" and senators were "of the state" meaning that senators were the states' representatives to the federal government, hence the reason they were originally selected by state legislatures. It was not until the 17th amendment (passed in 1913) that senators were directly elected. The point being that the 14th amendment does indeed apply to the 24th. Once again, this proves the previous point that there is more than one way to interpret the constitution and laws.
I think that the above also goes to reinforce the point about how the law can work both for and against metrication depending on who interprets what. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Paul Trusten, R.Ph. > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 1:57 PM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:35167] RE: constitutional basis for metrication (was > Government conversion mandate) > > Of course, the U.S. Constitution applies to the country at every level. > But, > Phil, the 24th amendment limits itself specifically to federal elections > (see below). Yes, it would apply to voters in Georgia who vote for > candidates for federal offices, but I'm saying that it does not apply when > the elections involve only state and municipal elections. No, I don't > favor > a poll tax! I'm just saying that, if the U.S. Supreme Court ended up > adjudging an ID card to be a form of poll tax, Georgia might not run > afoul > of this ruling if it applied its ID requirement only to state and local > office contests. > > (My solution to the problem is to do what we do in Texas: state government > issues free voter registration certificates to voters. I'd like to see > them > include a free picture, too. If free, hence no "tax" accusation.) > > (Sorry, everyone; I won't belabor this non-metric stuff any further on the > list). > > > > > (sorry, everyone; I won't belabor this on the list beyond this message): > > > Amendment XXIV > > Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any > primary > or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for > President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, > shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by > reason > of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. > > > Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by > appropriate legislation. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phil Chernack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 12:29 > Subject: [USMA:35166] RE: constitutional basis for metrication (was > Government conversion mandate) > > > > Paul, > > By virtue of the 14th amendment, all amendments (as well as the > constitution > > itself) apply to the states as well as the Feds. I had that one beaten > into > > me in high school history class :) > > > > Phil > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf > > > Of Paul Trusten, R.Ph. > > > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 1:10 PM > > > To: U.S. Metric Association > > > Subject: [USMA:35165] constitutional basis for metrication (was > Government > > > conversion mandate) > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >
