Jerry, much as I am a U.S. spokesman in favor of metrication, I do not approve of our constitution being amended just to insert mere legislation. I would not want to see SI established as the Nation's measurement standard by constitutional amendment. From what I understand, the U.S. Constitution is the basis for law, not law itself. And, if, in years to come, the use of SI needed to be modified, it would run into a major roadblock to ordinary (legislative or regulatory) modification because it would be written in stone in the Constitution. As it stands now, SI is defined by the U.S. as the SI we get from the BIPM, but "as nterpreted or modified for the United States by the Secretary of Commerce." This clause gives us some necessary wiggle room to apply SI reasonably to American society.
Also, your statement about amending the Constitution "with or without Congress" implies that you expect that two thirds of the state legislatures would call a Constitutional Convention to vote on metric. That would be the only way the Constitution could be amended "without Congress", and I doubt very much that such a convention, only the second in U.S. history, would be called to consider one issue. I do think you are on the right track when you suggest that the U.S. Metric Board, still a viable entity under the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, should be revived. But, reviving it should only be done as part of a strong national push for the metrication process, and not as the fractured, toothless tiger it was in the 1970s. With the strong backing of the Executive, Congress, industry leaders, and the American people, the new USMB should be unanimously supportive of the metrication goal, and also should have new power from the Congress to write a national metrication plan and see it through to completion. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremiah MacGregor To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: 14 March, 2009 11:09 Subject: [USMA:43827] Re: New EO and FPLA The FMI must be kept out of the loop for any new draft of the FPLA to be effective. A new metrication board needs to be established to first identify any legal restrictions to full SI usage and have all these restrictions removed. The Constitution needs to be amended (with or with out Congress) to make SI the only legal standard. Obstacles need to be removed first and loop holes closed. Then a planned effort can be initiated. With Obama moving more and more towards socialism, this may not be as difficult to achieve as with the previous administrations. Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "mech...@illinois.edu" <mech...@illinois.edu> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 11:36:11 AM Subject: [USMA:43819] New EO and FPLA John, More recently than the Act of 1866 legalizing metric units is PL 100-418 (designating SI as preferred for US trade and commerce...), also an Act of Congress. I believe that President Obama will eventually express support, rather than efforts to repeal, these Acts. Let's draft a new Executive Order (and submit it for consideration by the White House); an order which reduces easy evasion by Departments and Agencies of the Executive Branch. I'm also thinking of a new draft of the FPLA rather than a mere Amendment since NIST must resubmit its draft anyway. Perhaps we can debate various drafts in this USMA forum? Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:36:44 -0700 (PDT) >From: "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> >Subject: [USMA:43814] Re: Metric personal data was Re: 24 hour time >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > > > >At best, it is ignoring an Executive Order, binding on Federal agencies. Reality is that their boss (the Prez) doesn't enforce it, nor have recent past Presidents and it has been widely ignored by Federal agencies. > >The few that tried to honor it (DoT) were handed setbacks by Congress. > >The EO is still out there, but it might be wise to have all political ducks in a row before arguing it. It could be struck down at the stroke of a pen. I don't think we have any idea where Obama stands on metrication. > >Perhaps an argument could be made around the Metric Act of 1866. However, I am not aware of much case law surrounding it. If it hasn't been used much in 140+ years, that argument might be a very hard sell.
