The USMA really needs to be more clever then it is. They don't need to lobby per se. They get others to do it for them. They provide the guidance. Think of all of the thousands of companies that use metric or would like to that the USMA could organize together to form a lobbying group. It would be in the businesses best interest, especially those businesses that either benefit from metric or would if it was more common or metric parts and services were more common.
Organize the businesses and let them pressure the government. Especially those with big pockets. It may take an effort, but it can be done. We don't even have to push for 100 %, but enough to reach a critical mass that will self-propel the remainder over. Any problem with this? Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 2004-09-02 13:14 Subject: [USMA:30972] Re: America's progress > At 2 09 04, 12:25 AM, Jason Darfus wrote: > >I'm with you 100%, Bob. If there was a USMA lobbying group, and I do > >think we need one, I'd divert a portion of my paycheck to the cause. > >I'm just not satisfied with the progress we're (not) making. We have this > >wonderful clause in the Constitution that hasn't yet been invoked. > > This "wonderful clause in the Constitution" has been actively used for two > centuries. What is now NIST provides the legal definition of units of > weights and measures for the USA -- meaning that NIST "fix[es[ the standard > of weights & measures." > > Article 1, Section 8 most assuredly does NOT do any of the following: > > (a) permit the "standard" to be changed willy-nilly to suit political winds > (b) specify only ONE standard be used > (c) specify that metric should or should not be used > > Some list members read into this clause the right of the Federal government > to pretty much mandate metrication if it so chooses. Nothing could be > further from the truth: there are significant legal constraints on the > scope of the "weights and measures" clause, and to pretend otherwise is > being blind to reality. > > A few years ago I spent my own money to hire a legal firm to research the > question of whether the federal government, under the "weights & measures" > clause and the "commerce clause" had the right to require metric-only > labels on consumer products. The result of the research was as unequivocal > as any legal opinion can get: the likelihood of such legislation passing > constitutional muster is very, very near zero. > > The ability of the Federal government to mandate metric in all commerce, > including non-consumer products, is also essentially nil. > > >We need a group in Washington. We need pro-metric executives of America's > >largest pro-metric companies as USMA members. Perhaps we even need some > >help from Hollywood. Whatever it takes, we need to make some progress. > > "We need" seems to be a polite way of saying "somebody should." I can only > ask everyone on the list who agrees that "we need A, B or C": > > What are YOU doing to promote metrication, aside from complaining about it? > > Jim > > > > Jim Elwell, CAMS > Electrical Engineer > Industrial manufacturing manager > Salt Lake City, Utah, USA > www.qsicorp.com >
