Thanks, Jim, for sharing this enlightening piece with us. Now I feel even more confident that it has much less to do with what we've been discussing. Why? Simple, first of all, the amendments being discussed and in question here are #1 and #14 (not #8!). Second, the first paragraph talks about "unwarranted governmental regulation", and not a constitutionally defined right of Congress to *fix* the standards of weights and measurements. Third, given that fixing the standard would not preclude the company's use of something else also, the point of restriction is moot (i.e. there is no restriction, actually, for them to use ifp units). Finally, government's interest can be claimed to be served as they are acting on their constitutional duty and responsibility to fix the standards. They have no responsibility or any obligation to ALSO act on accepting standards for other "non-official" units! There you have it, my thorough layman's analysis of this court decision! :-) Marcus On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:22:41 Jim Elwell wrote: >I promised to post the text from the Central Hudson case (447 >U.S. 557 1980) where the Supreme Court outlined how it examines >restrictions on commercial speech. > >You can read the Court's own words at this URL: > >http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=% >5Bgroup+f_commercial+speech!3A%5D/doc/%7Bt78550%7D/hit_headings/w >ords=4/pageitems=%7Bbody%7D > > >Jim Elwell > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
