Thanks. Quite interesting. Even though it mentions that Congress never set the standard, it never gives a reason. There has to be one, no? yes?
I wonder what would have happened if we had adopted one those versions. Would they have been exported and become a universal standard competing with the metric system or even replacing it? Hard to say but interesting to think about. I find it strange that a rood is both a length and an area. That would be confusing and that a metre (spelled with the re and not er ending) is a cubic inch. I also see the stone would have been in common us in the US. But both versions still look complicated with to many names to remember and with the first version to many odd conversion factors to have to deal with too. Metric is still simpler. Jerry ________________________________ From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:27:54 PM Subject: RE: [USMA:43897] Re: New EO and FPLA 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 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 US +1(432)528-7724 mailto:[email protected]
