And with the momentum some states had, still letting metric contracts 5 years after reversion.
Nat
April 28, 2004
10.
English and metric (units) projects.The Department continues to let contracts with metric units, and the Industry asked when metric projects would be phased out. The Department replied that each project is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Currently, projects surveyed in metric are designed, advertised and awarded in metric, but at some point, the Department will have to convert metric surveys to English.
http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstruct/highway/dsn_srvc/contracts/agcdot/minutes/0304min.pdf-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bill Potts
Sent: Wednesday, 2004 May 26 12:57
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:29986] Re: Three Silly Reasons for Not Adopting the Metric System
It was originally intended that the Government do all its own procurement using SI units. If government departments and agencies had followed through on that, rather than using the loophole that was provided, the country might be mostly SI by now.
Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
>Behalf Of Jim Elwell
>Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 07:55
>To: U.S. Metric Association
>Subject: [USMA:29985] Re: Three Silly Reasons for Not Adopting the
>Metric System
>
>
>At 26 05 04, 07:58 AM, Terry Simpson wrote:
>>When you say 'mandating metrication', do you actually mean 'forbidding
>>non-metric'. I can see that forbidding non-metric units on beer
>labels might
>>bring up similar legal issues to that case. But 'mandating metric
>units' on
>>beer (or any other product) labels has no parallels with that case
>>that I can see. Presumably if it did, it might be possible to argue
>>that the current and proposed versions of the FPLA are also
>>unconstitutional.
>
>This is an excellent question and perceptive reading of the Coors case.
>
>It is likely that where the US government already has regulatory powers
>(e.g., food and alcohol), they can get away with mandating inclusion of
>metric units. It is less likely they can get away with prohibiting
>non-metric units. Requiring "rational" package sizes has happened in
>highly-regulated areas (e.g., alcohol), but would likely be struck down
>if attempted more broadly.
>
>However, where the government has no regulatory powers, which covers a
>lot of economic activity, albeit much of it non-consumer, it is less
>clear that even mandating inclusion of metric labeling might not be
>allowed, since if there are currently no regulatory powers, it is tough
>to argue there is a legitimate government interest.
>
>Of course, the way it SHOULD be (and what would happen if I were King)
>is that the entirety of weights and measures legislation would be
>something like "Any weights & measures used must be well defined (fine
>print here), and fraudulent use would be punishable."
>
>Then metric would win over time, as it is the better system, and there
>would be no "metric police" out there destroying peoples' lives for
>perfectly peaceful and non-fraudulent activities.
>
>Jim
>
>
>Jim Elwell
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>801-466-8770
>www.qsicorp.com
>
