On Thu, 24 May 2001 15:35:37 Jim Elwell wrote: >...The reading most of you give to Section 8 is perfectly reasonable, but it is >hardly the only reasonable reading. It is also reasonable to say Congress >*has* fixed the standard of weights and measures, and has no authority to >now change them again. > ??? I'm very sorry, my friend, but this is NOT the language of the text in the Constitution AT ALL. It has the power **to fix**, period. It's totally irrelevant if it has already done that or not, one, twice, n-th time, whatever. To fix is to fix is to fix. I honestly believe no lawyer would ever try to use such very questionable 'time' approach in the interpretation of this text. Sorry, pal... But this 'doesn't stick' or hold water. >Furthermore, changing them and making metric mandatory will run into >problems with the 1st (free speech), 5th (takings), 9th (enumerated rights) >and 10th (rights reserved) amendments. And probably others. > Not necessarily so. People will still be able to use ifp in 'free speech'. It has already been argued here elsewhere about the fallacy of the 5th, takings, and the rights part is just a non-sequitur, as the right to fix standards is said to belong to Congress and it *alone*! >...But, if you think that these issues will not be raised in a horrendous >onslaught of lawsuits if metrication were made mandatory in this nation, >then you have your head meters deep in the sand. > I wouldn't doubt that, but only IF it is not done properly, without the "carrot" component. If the government is smart about this, it will take every necessary measure to take the steam off any opposition to this mandate, if it plays its cards right. >The fact of the matter is, there isn't a snowball's chance of getting >mandatory metric in this country in our lifetimes. Why not??? Only if we allow whiners to carry the day. But if we get ourselves organized and be as loud as these idiots would be, why not??? Even without people like >me, who think metric is great but abhor coercion, there are lots of people >like the ones Harry Wyeth mentioned who think metric is horrific. And, like >it or not, they vote too. > And so would we. But as long as we are convincing rationally, logically, that measurements are not in the realm of democracy, but something that only 'experts' should have the authority to deal with (as a system of units belong in the technology realm) we should not fear. >Therefore, I believe that my approach to metrication (i.e., education, >proselytizing, spreading metric within my circle of influence) is vastly >more effective than Andy's in-your-face bombastic approach. Oh, yeah? Show us, honestly, Jim, where such method has really been effective in the last 25 years, *please*. Show us *unequivocally* that the US has indeed advanced by any modest amount in that direction. I'm afraid you won't find ONE example of it. Quite the contrary, something we could be crowing about now, for instance, the DOT business, actually backfired. The fact of the matter is the US continues as much in Fred Flintstone's territory today as it ever has prior to 1970s. All Andy manages >to do is p*** off people; I convert them. >... I'm not sure of the former. And while I should be very happy about your success rate in converting people until that conversion translates into REAL action, like getting people to actually use SI you haven't really made much of an indent, except to perhaps potentially silence an otherwise dissenting voice to our cause. But even that, who knows?... Cheers, Marcus Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
