In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
I thought USA went out of their way some years back, to make it
clear that the relevant secretary (of commerce ?) decided what
US timekeeping was and that it certainly had nothing to do with GMT ?
Or was that laying the ground for US unlateral action on leap-seconds ?
What you have in mind is Section 3013 of the
America COMPETES Act
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ069.110.pdf
. It made a number of "Technical Amendments,"
which say among other things,
"COORDINATED UNIVERSAL TIME DEFINED.-In this section,
the term 'Coordinated Universal Time' means the time scale maintained
through the General Conference of Weights and Measures
and interpreted or modified for the United States by the Secretary
of Commerce in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy.''.
The General Conference of Weights and Measures
(in French, the Conférence Générale des Poids et
Mesures, CGPM) was established by the Treaty of
the Meter, which the Senate ratified in 1878.
Amendments to the Treaty were ratified by the
Senate in 1923. One can infer from this that the
longstanding policy of the U.S. Government has
been that it's a good thing if measurements are
the same worldwide, and that decisions of the
CGPM carry some weight.
If you're looking for hidden meanings in this
wording you need only compare it to the wording
on how the Metric System is defined in the U.S.
(as SI) -- it's EXACTLY THE SAME. This wording
has been around in the law since the mid-1960's,
a few years after SI was established.
In case you're wondering, the power of the
Secretary of Commerce has been used to "interpret
or modify" SI. In the U.S., it's "meter" and
"liter," not "metre" and "litre."
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
And illegal on many systems, including all USGOV owned and operated
systems.
I thought the ITU had treaty status, therefore that they could decree
>that we all must henceforth wear Goofy watches that run CCW, and that
this sober determination would supersede all other laws of God and man.
No, ITU does not have treaty status, you are supposed to follow their
recommedations and standards, unless there is specific national
regulation.
The ITU is a U.N. agency.
It's really been amusing to read so many people
say what is/was legal and what is/was not, on a
whole variety of points.
Let's take a survey:
* Who on this mailing list is a lawyer?
* Who can cite case law, where a court has had to decide an actual
controversy on timekeeping? (Courts don't deal with hypothetical
controversies or arguments over trivia. De minimis non curat lex.)
Frankly, a lot of what I've been reading here
sounds like it's really overreaching. It's
perfectly possible for precise legalities to be
never determined because they never arise as a
point of meaningful controversy.
- Jonathan
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
