[LEAPSECS] The relation between calendars and leap seconds.

[Jonathan E. Hardis]

>In message <9EE85ED8-DCC8-4299-BF59-E1E322D8D1CC at noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:

>

>I thought USA went out of their way some years back, to make it

>clear that the relevant secretary (of commerce ?) decided what

>US timekeeping was and that it certainly had nothing to do with GMT ?

>

>Or was that laying the ground for US unlateral action on leap-seconds ?


What you have in mind is Section 3013 of the 
America COMPETES Act 
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ069.110.pdf 
.  It made a number of "Technical Amendments," 
which say among other things,

"COORDINATED UNIVERSAL TIME DEFINED.-In this section,
the term 'Coordinated Universal Time' means the time scale maintained
through the General Conference of Weights and Measures
and interpreted or modified for the United States by the Secretary
of Commerce in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy.''.


The General Conference of Weights and Measures 
(in French, the Conférence Générale des Poids et 
Mesures, CGPM) was established by the Treaty of 
the Meter, which the Senate ratified in 1878. 
Amendments to the Treaty were ratified by the 
Senate in 1923.  One can infer from this that the 
longstanding policy of the U.S. Government has 
been that it's a good thing if measurements are 
the same worldwide, and that decisions of the 
CGPM carry some weight.

If you're looking for hidden meanings in this 
wording you need only compare it to the wording 
on how the Metric System is defined in the U.S. 
(as SI) -- it's EXACTLY THE SAME.  This wording 
has been around in the law since the mid-1960's, 
a few years after SI was established.

In case you're wondering, the power of the 
Secretary of Commerce has been used to "interpret 
or modify" SI.  In the U.S., it's "meter" and 
"liter," not "metre" and "litre."



>In message <9EE85ED8-DCC8-4299-BF59-E1E322D8D1CC at noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:

>

>>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>>

>>>  And illegal on many systems, including all USGOV owned and operated 

>>>  systems.

>>

>>I thought the ITU had treaty status, therefore that they could decree

>  >that we all must henceforth wear Goofy watches that run CCW, and that 

>>this sober determination would supersede all other laws of God and man.

>

>No, ITU does not have treaty status, you are supposed to follow their

>recommedations and standards, unless there is specific national

>regulation.



The ITU is a U.N. agency.

It's really been amusing to read so many people 
say what is/was legal and what is/was not, on a 
whole variety of points.

Let's take a survey:

   * Who on this mailing list is a lawyer?

   * Who can cite case law, where a court has had to decide an actual
     controversy on timekeeping?  (Courts don't deal with hypothetical
     controversies or arguments over trivia.  De minimis non curat lex.)

Frankly, a lot of what I've been reading here 
sounds like it's really overreaching.  It's 
perfectly possible for precise legalities to be 
never determined because they never arise as a 
point of meaningful controversy.

    - Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20081112/3f1697bf/attachment-0001.html>