Jim questions the constitutionality of metric labeling by raising the
question of "substantial government interest":
> (b) Is the governmental interest substantial?
> ...
> Item (b) would be a major stumbling block to broad legislation
> affecting essentially all commercial products, as it would be
> very difficult to argue a government interest in metrication or
> metric labeling of many purely-consumer products.
I don't see where item (b) is a stumbling block at all.
Requiring uniform statements of contents or sizes in a universal measurement
language is of interest to the government
in promoting better understanding on the part of the public of the products
they buy which is certainly related to interstate commerce;
promoting foreign trade by assuring that American products are reasonably
interchangable with foreign ones and that descriptions of sizes, quantities,
etc. are understood by our trading partners (and vice versa);
for tax purposes in some cases (where items are taxed on the basis of
content sizes), etc.
I will agree that it might be difficult to insist that the old, non-metric
descriptions should NOT appear since. If the correct metric size is there to
meet the law, then the addition of old, non-metric equivalents could be
defended on first amendment principles. I think it could be argued that it
is constitutional to require the (metric) description to be more prominent
than the old non-metric equivalent.
Regards,
Bill Hooper
============
Keep It Simple!
Make It Metric!
============
