<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [LEAPSECS] The relation between calendars and
leap sec</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In message
<9EE85ED8-DCC8-4299-BF59-E1E322D8D1CC@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman
writes:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
I thought USA went out of their way some years back, to make it<br>
clear that the relevant secretary (of commerce ?) decided what<br>
US timekeeping was and that it certainly had nothing to do with GMT
?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Or was that laying the ground for US
unlateral action on leap-seconds ?</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>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_pu<span
></span>blic_laws&docid=f:publ069.110.pdf . It made a number
of "Technical Amendments," which say among other
things,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>"COORDINATED UNIVERSAL TIME DEFINED.-In this section,<br>
the term 'Coordinated Universal Time' means the time scale
maintained</div>
<div>through the General Conference of Weights and Measures<br>
and interpreted or modified for the United States by the Secretary<br>
of Commerce in coordination with the Secretary of the
Navy.''.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In case you're wondering, the power of the Secretary of
Commerce<i> has</i> been used to "interpret or modify" SI.
In the U.S., it's "meter" and "liter," not
"metre" and "litre."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In message
<9EE85ED8-DCC8-4299-BF59-E1E322D8D1CC@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman
writes:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:<br>
><br>
>> And illegal on many systems, including all USGOV owned and
operated <br>
>> systems.<br>
><br>
>I thought the ITU had treaty status, therefore that they could
decree </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>>that we all must henceforth wear
Goofy watches that run CCW, and that <br>
>this sober determination would supersede all other laws of God and
man.<br>
<br>
No, ITU does not have treaty status, you are supposed to follow
their<br>
recommedations and standards, unless there is specific national<br>
regulation.</blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>The ITU is a U.N. agency.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Let's take a survey:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div> * Who on this mailing list is a lawyer?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div> * Who can cite case law, where a court has had to decide
an actual</div>
<div> controversy on timekeeping? (Courts
don't deal with hypothetical</div>
<div> controversies or arguments over
trivia. <i> De minimis non curat lex</i>.)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div> - Jonathan</div>
</body>
</html>