If the opposite of pro- is con-, what's the opposite of progress? I think our Constitution gave Congress free will. We, the people, do want Congress to use that free will wisely.
Paul Quoting Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>: > When I said amended I was referring to the part where the Constitution grants > the right to the Congress to set the standard. However if Congress doesn't > do its duty and act then maybe they need to be by-passed. George Bush did > not let Congress get in his way when he was president. > > I agree that the USMB should not be toothless. It must have the same powers > the similar boards had in other countries. I doubt though you would get much > support from the American people. > > Jerry > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Paul Trusten <trus...@grandecom.net> > To: U..S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 1:22:49 PM > Subject: [USMA:43839] Re: New EO and FPLA > > > 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. > > > -- Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Public Relations Director U.S. Metric Association (USMA), Inc. www.metric.org 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 US +1(432)528-7724 mailto:trus...@grandecom.net
