Perhaps more important than that is what Congress actually adopted. NIST SP447 is a pretty good history.
In brief, either adopted by Congress or through power delegated to appropriate Federal agency: 1832: Basic standards, yard, pound, gallon, bushel. The first two were the same as used in England to the accuracy of prototypes. The last two were the obsolete Queen Anne gallon and Winchester bushel as defined by Parliament in 1707. 1866: Metric measure legalized 1893: Discard Customary standards, declare Customary as metric fractions (values from 1866 law) 1954L Adopt International nautical mile (1852 m) 1959: Adopt International foot and pound. --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:43923] Re: New EO and FPLA > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 5:27 PM > Hi Jerry, > > > > I suggest that you visit > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_for_Establishing_Uniformity_in_the_Coinage > ,_Weights,_and_Measures_of_the_United_States. > > > > > > _____ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Jeremiah MacGregor > Sent: 15 March 2009 16:39 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Cc: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:43897] Re: New EO and FPLA > > > > Does anyone have an idea why Congress has never set the > standard in 200 > years? > > > > Jerry > > > > _____ > > From: "Paul Trusten, R.Ph." > <[email protected]> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:17:37 PM > Subject: [USMA:43891] Re: New EO and FPLA > > > 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 > <[email protected]>: > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > To: U...S. Metric Association > <[email protected]> > > 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: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > > To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > > 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" > <[email protected]> > > >Subject: [USMA:43814] Re: Metric personal data was > Re: 24 hour time > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > >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 <http://www.metric.org/> > 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 > Midland TX 79707-2872 US > +1(432)528-7724 > mailto:[email protected]
