Unfortunately, contradictions like these must sometimes be resolved by the Judicial Branch. e.g. If a packager were to use metric-only labels and an inspector fined the packager before the FPLA is *corrected* to permit metric-only labels. I would love to see P&G try SI-only as a test case!
---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:56:38 -0700 (PDT) >From: "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> >Subject: Re: [USMA:43819] New EO and FPLA >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>, mech...@illinois.edu > > >I want us to be more metric. However, that Act and $0.50 will buy you a cheap >copy of coffee. In particular look at the way Congress also gutted metric >directives for highway construction and Federal buildings. They speak out >both sides of their mouths. > >The gutting actions have the effect of law, and the Act above has the effect >of motherhood and apple pie. > > >--- On Sat, 3/14/09, mech...@illinois.edu <mech...@illinois.edu> wrote: > >> From: mech...@illinois.edu <mech...@illinois.edu> >> Subject: [USMA:43819] New EO and FPLA >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> >> Date: Saturday, March 14, 2009, 11:36 AM >> 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. >> >
