I think it is not a Democrat vs Republican debate. I think both the parties 
have been derelict in their duty on this one. 

Article I Section 8 of the constitution states that Congress has the power "to 
coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the 
standard of weights and measures"

Setting the weights and measures to the metric system is not somehow some 
"unfunded mandate" as some lobbyists have painted it to be, nor is it a 
government power grab. This issue was written into the Constitution.

Congress has metric the "legally preferred system" of the US in 1988. The 
Constitution call for Congress to set " the standard" NOT "the standard(s)". 

I know it is splitting legal hairs  here, but couldn't it be argued that 
Congress intended for metric to be used, and imperial were found to be 
unconstitutional on these grounds? Any legal scholars have an opinion on this 
one?








 
On Monday, October 08, 2007, at 03:42PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh, I wonder if the folks who just got an ncrease in pay thanks to the first 
>hike in the minimum wage in years  (thanks to a Republican Congress) or the 
>kids who won't see health insurance because of the veto of the SCHIP bill 
>(thanks to a Republican President) would entirely agree.
>
>But this isn't the forum for more of this, so I'll let it go ...
>
>Ezra
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>From: Brian J White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Fine...Dems, Repubs....I could care less.    It's the fault of the US 
>> Government.  :)   I don't get into Ford vs Chevy type arguments about 
>> political parties.  That's all it is these days.
>> 
>> At 14:40 2007-10-08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Regarding the DOT regression from metrication, remember that it was 
>> >the Republican -controlled Congress that insisted on amending the 
>> >Transportation Act in that way. It was not politically feasible for 
>> >Bill Clinton to veto that bill over just that one amendment.
>> >
>> >So, blame the Repubs for that gem, Brian.
>> >
>> >Ezra
>> 
>
>
>

Reply via email to