text:
Constitutional Law Prof Blog
Lousin and Mirza Rethinking Reapportionment
By ConLawProf initials at end of post
Professor Ann Lousin (John Marshall) and Professor Leona Mirza (North Park U., Dept. of Mathematics) argued in last week's National Law Journal that the best way to avoid an electoral college winner beating a popular vote winner (as in the 2000 presidential election) is to increase the number of U.S. representatives.
Lousin and Mirza argue that the Huntington-Hill method of determining the number of each state's representatives works just fine to achieve proportional representation in the House. But when the Electoral College adds Senate representation to determine the number of presidential electors, the results favor small states.
Lousin and Mirza suggest adding representatives to the House by using the smallest state's population as the measure for one representative. States with multiples of the smallest state's population would receive a proportional multiple of representatives. Lousin and Mirza:
We suggest that the best, easiest and cleanest way to challenge the composition of the Electoral College would be to replace the Huntington-Hill method of determining the total number of U.S. representatives every decade with a process using the smallest-populated state as its key. The state with the smallest population, currently Wyoming, would be awarded one U.S. representative (and two senators, of course). A state that had twice Wyoming's population would be awarded two U.S. representatives; a state with three "Wyomings" would have three representatives, and so forth.
The result would be a House with over 600 members. "Wyoming would still have only one, but California would have 68 instead of 53. In all probability, more than 40 states would increase their number of U.S. representatives." Unwieldy? No, they argue: Most of the House's work is done in committees, and it rarely meets in full session.
Lousin and Mirza's solution is an alternative to the National Popular Vote movement. National Popular Vote bills are state legislation that would bind a state to allocating its Electoral College votes in proportion to the state's popular vote (and not by winner-take-all rules). Five states have enacted National Popular Vote bills, and a couple dozen others are considering them. The laws won't take effect until states comprising a majority of the Electoral College sign on.
February 27, 2010 in Elections and Voting, Federalism, News, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Aspiring Court Cartoon Captioners - Deadline Imminent
The New Yorker has a regular feature that provides a cartoon drawing requiring a caption; the March 1, 2010 contest (#229) with its drawing by Paul Noth might inspire some contributions from ConLaw buffs. Enter at New Yorker website here. The deadline is 11.59 pm Sunday, February 28, 2010; 250 character limit.
February 27, 2010 in Games | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Maryland Atty General Opinion on Recognition of Out-of-State Same-sex Marriages
In a word: yes.
In a few words: a qualified yes.
In the concluding words of the 53 page opinion of the Maryland Attorney General, 95 Md. Op. Att'y 3 (2010)(download here):
While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the [Maryland Supreme] Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction. In light of Maryland's developing public policy concerning intimate same-sex relationships, the Court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition. You have posed the question in the abstract, but, of course, context matters. For example, to the extent that a particular matter is governed by federal law, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriage for
federal purposes to opposite-sex couples, would prevent recognition
of the marriage for that particular purpose. Finally, with respect to your question concerning the Governor's authority to issue an executive order, the Governor cannot legislate through an executive order.
February 27, 2010 in Current Affairs, Family, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, State Constitutional Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Larry Tribe, Legal Services for the Poor, and Sharon Browne
ConLaw Prof Larry Tribe (pictured left) of Harvard Law School "will join the Justice Department next week as a senior and counselor focusing on expanding poor people's access to legal services" according to the Washington Post and announced by Harvard Law School.
The WaPo article notes, "The announcement comes a week after senior leaders at the department appeared at a Washington conference to draw attention to the large caseloads handled by public defenders and other challenges in providing legal services to low-income defendants."
Thus, it seems Tribe's efforts will be directed at the criminal justice system.
Meanwhile, on the civil side, Sharon Browne has been nominated to be the Director of the Legal Services Corporation - - - a choice objectionable to many civil rights and progressive legal organizations who support civil legal services for the poor. According to the Alliance for Justice, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proposed that Sharon Browne, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation ("PLF"), be nominated to fill a vacancy on the Legal Services Corporation ("LSC") Board of Directors, and Obama sent that nomination to the Senate for confirmation or rejection. In addition to her work at PLF, the Alliance for Justice objects to Browne because in 1992, "Browne was one in a group of plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit, Brosterhous v. State Bar of California,challenging the State Bar's use of attorneys' dues money to advocate for providing adequate legal services for the poor in the legislature."
February 26, 2010 in Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Fundamental Rights, News, Profiles in Con Law Teaching | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Gormley on Starr and Clinton
ConLawProf (and Interim Dean) Ken Gormley (pictured right) of Duquesne University Law School has just published THE DEATH OF AMERICAN VIRTUE: Clinton vs. Starr.
The review in the NYT notes that "unlike some other commentators, Gormley allows for the possibility that even the most rabid-seeming players might have acted out of honorable considerations." Based on an interview with the federal district judge hearing the original sexual harassment lawsuit, Gormley also reveals that she contemplated finding Clinton in criminal contempt, which would have ended Clinton's political career in a "nanosecond." Yet the tenor of the 800 page book, at least according to the NYT review, is that the Clinton impeachment was all so unnecessary (quoting Starr) and diversionary.
The political relevance of Gormley's book is obvious. But it also seems an essential sequel to Clinton v. Jones, in which the Court unanimously rejected Clinton's constitutional arguments to stay the trial until after his presidency had ended.
February 26, 2010 in Books, Cases and Case Materials, Executive Privilege, History, Profiles in Con Law Teaching, Scholarship, Separation of Powers, Teaching Tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Betting on Bush v. Gore?
From a new article in the ABA Journal, we learn one of our Supreme Court Justices had a "financial stake" in Bush v. Gore - - a stake the Justice quickly acted to obliterate:
Dear Obie and Betty Nan:
It now appears remotely possible that the Florida election case might come to our court. I therefore feel obliged to cancel all my election bets in any way dependent on the Florida vote. I hope you will agree to let me do this.
As one of the recipients of the faxed letter explains:
"In the beginning, it was simple. We each bet $1 on one or two close races, shook hands and paid off the next time we had dinner together. But in a few years, without deliberate planning, the scope of our betting expanded. The money involved remained insignificant. The wagering terms, however, became complicated. On some Election Days we each wagered a dollar on two dozen or more individual races. To add complexity and variety to our game, we changed the terms regularly. Sometimes we simply chose a winner. More often we wagered on spread, voter percentage or by what percentage each party would win in a legislature."
More revelations by Bill Rehnquist's friend, Herman Obermayer ("Obie"), about the former Chief Justice make for an interesting read.
February 25, 2010 in Equal Protection, History, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Senate's Catch XXII and the Constitutional Option
The Senate can do away with its cloture requirement by a mere majority vote, writes Yale Law Journal articles editor Aaron Zelinsky today on the Huffington Post. Zelinsky argues that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has unnecessarily assumed that this Senate rules change would require 67 votes (which he doesn't have) and thereby weakened his hand in negotiating with the minority.
The cloture rule, requiring 60 votes to end debate, and the rules-change rule are both in Senate Rule XXII:
at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer . . . shall . . . submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn--except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative votes shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting--then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
In short, 67 votes are required to close debate on a measure to amend the Senate rules (including the cloture rule itself). (The late Senator Kennedy aptly called this double-bind to the cloture rule a "Catch XXII.")
But Zelinsky points out that nothing in the Constitution requires this super-majority to change the Senate rules. He argues that the Constitution specifies when the Senate must vote by more than a simple majority (as in trying impeachments, e.g.), that the Senate rules themselves are not subject by the Constitution to any super-majority, and that therefore changes to the Senate rules must default to the simple majority rule. See U.S. v. Ballin ("the general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations . . . No such limitation is found in the Federal Constitution, and therefore the general law of such bodies obtains."). Zelinsky concludes that Senator Tom Harkin's bill, Senate Resolution 416, to incrementally decrease the number of votes requires for cloture on a measure could pass now by a simple majority.
Others, including Senator Tom Udall, the Congressional Research Service, and Riddick's Senate Procedure, take a different position--that cloture on a fillibuster of a rules change requires 67 votes under Rule XXII, notwithstanding the constitutional default of a simple majority. In other words, while the Constitution demands only a simple majority to establish rules, the Constitution also doesn't prohibit the rules themselves setting a more rigorous standard. This is precisely what Rule XXII does, and it binds the Senate.
But these same sources also suggest that a simple majority can change the cloture rule at the beginning of a new Congress--the so-called "constitutional option." Here's how it works. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution allows each House to determine its own rules (by a simple majority). (Senate Rule V, which says that the Senate rules--including Rule XXII--"shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules" (and thus taking us back to where we started) itself violates Article I, Section 5 in that it binds the new Senate to old rules and prevents the new Senate from determining its own rules.) Thus at the beginning of each Congress--before the Senate has had a chance to (re)enact its rules--generally parliamentary law, including the simple majority rule, applies. Under general parliamentary law, the new Senate can enact its own new rules by a simple majority.
This is exactly what Senator Udall is attempting in his Senate Resolution 396, now before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
(Opponents of this tactic argue that only one-third of the Senate turns over at a time, and a quorum is always in existence. Therefore the Senate doesn't need to reconstitute itself with each new Congress, and its rules, including Rule XXII, simply carry over.)
Martin Gold and Dimple Gupta spin out the constitutional option along with other possibilities in their Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy piece, The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Overcome the Fillibuster.
February 24, 2010 in Congressional Authority, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
States and Guns
The New York Times reports today that fear of tighter gun regulations by the Obama administration has driven several states to loosen firearm regulations. (We posted earlier this week on the Washington State Supreme Court's ruling incorporating the Second Amendment against Washington State.)
The states' actions may be motivated in part by concern for protecting Second Amendment rights, but they appear to be legislative efforts (not mandates by the courts).
At the same time, several states are considering some version of the Firearms Freedom Act--state legislation that declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause, in effect nullifying such legislation. Montana and Tennessee have already passed a version of this, and a dozen or so other states are considering it.
The FFA may be a bold political statement, but like so many other, similar nullification efforts that we've seen recently (and historically), it will have no constitutional effect. That aside, the FFA appears to ignore the well established rule that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Firearms manufactured and retained within a single state certainly could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and Congress could ensure this through its fact-finding and by adding a "jurisdictional hook" to any federal legislation (as it did in the wake of Lopez to the Gun Free School Zone Act,18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(q)).
The FFA makes another constitutional mistake. According to the FFA web-site, "[t]he FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the "commerce clause," with firearms as the object--it is a state's rights exercise." Whatever the FFA is, it most certainly is not a "Tenth Amendment challenge." Nothing in the text or history of the Tenth Amendment (or the Supreme Court's post-1995 Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases) suggests that the Tenth Amendment limits the powers of Congress or gives rights to states. It simply reserves powers to the states that aren't given to the federal government. The core question--and the real thrust of the FFA--is whether Congress has power to regulate this items under the Commerce Clause. This may (or may not) be an interesting issue, but it has little to do with the Tenth Amendment.
February 23, 2010 in Congressional Authority, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, News, Recent Cases, Reconstruction Era Amendments | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Oral Argument in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the case testing the constitutionality of a portion of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. (We previously posted on the case here.) The relevant section, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339B(a)(1), outlaws the "knowing" provision of "material support or resources" to a "foreign terrorist organization," as determined by the Secretary of State. The section defines "material support or resources" as follows:
any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339B(a)(1) (emphasis added).
The plaintiffs—a retired judge, a medical doctor, a human rights organization, and several nonprofit groups—brought the case as a preenforcement challenge to the statute and sought a declaration that the statute violated the First Amendment. Plaintiffs sought to continue to teach and advocate the use of international law and other nonviolent means to reduce conflict, advance human rights, and promote peace on behalf of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), two organizations designated as "foreign terrorist organization[s]" by the Secretary of State. Plaintiffs feared that their advocacy would violate the statute, resulting in a sentence up to 15 years in prison. As the plaintiffs argued, and the government confirmed during oral argument today, the statute would make it a crime for plaintiffs to teach the PKK or LTTE human rights advocacy (or even English), to submit an amicus brief in federal court on behalf of the PKK or LTTE, to petition Congress or the United Nations for legal reform, or even to speak to the media on their behalf.
The Ninth Circuit ruled the statute void for vagueness. Oral argument today did nothing to clarify it.
The Court struggled with whether the plaintiffs' actions—teaching and advocacy—were speech (thus subjecting the statute to strict scrutiny, as a content-based restriction), or conduct (and thus subject to the much less rigorous test in O'Brien). In getting there, the Court posed a variety of hypotheticals that took the parties far afield from the plaintiffs' case—an "as applied" challenge to the statute. The speech-conduct debate, conducted through the hypotheticals, only served to illustrate how vague the statute is, and in the end neither party (nor, apparently, any justice) could articulate just where the line is between speech and conduct under the statute.
Professor David Cole (Georgetown), for the plaintiffs, argued that the statute needed a specific intent element—that it could be saved if it required the government to show that a defendant specifically intended that its actions would further unlawful or terrorist ends of the group. But this didn't square with the government's theory—that any support for a terrorist group is illegal, because even support for the lawful activities of the group might free up resources to be used for the unlawful activities of that group.
There are two problems (at least) with this theory. First, it doesn't lend itself to easily identifiable boundaries, especially when the support is speech—"expert advice or assistance." There's both an overbreadth problem and, as the lower court ruled, a vagueness problem when even the government can't articulate the full sweep of the statute. (Or when it does—as in saying that the statute prohibits an individual from filing an amicus brief on behalf of the PKK or the LTTE—its position runs so squarely up against the First Amendment and other constitutional values.) Second, this argument sounds like an attempt at meeting strict scrutiny (for the content-based restriction on speech). But, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, the government nowhere argued this before.
The net result—and where at least a couple on the Court seemed to end—is a good possibility of a remand. If the Court determines that the plaintiffs' activity is conduct, not speech, the Court may remand for application of the O'Brien test. If the Court determines that the plaintiffs' activity is speech, not conduct, the Court may remand for application of strict scrutiny.
Or, if the indeterminacy in the arguments today is any reflection of the vagueness of the statute, the Court may well uphold the lower court ruling and void the statute, as applied, for vagueness.
February 23, 2010 in Fundamental Rights, News, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Washington Supreme Court Incorporates Second Amendment
The Washington Supreme Court ruled late last week in State of Washington v. Sieyes that the Second Amendment applies against the State of Washington by way of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The decision came down less than two weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the incorporation issue in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
The Washington case involved a 17-year-old young man charged with unlawful possession of a firearm--a loaded Bursa .380 semiautomatic under his car seat. The trial court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to 10 days' juvenile detention, 1 year of supervision, 30 hours of community service, and a $100 fine. Sieyes appealed, arguing, among other things, that the Washington State general prohibition on possession of firearms by minors violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, see D.C. v. Heller, applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and the incorporation test set out in Duncan v. Louisiana.
The decision is surprising for its timing, for the issues it addresses, and for the issues it doesn't address. As Justice Stephens wrote in concurrence, "Restraint is particularly appropriate here because the very question is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court. . . . I do not believe this is an instance where [a state court ruling on a federal constitutional question can serve any purpose], particularly as our opinion is likely to be eclipsed before the ink it takes to print it is dry."
Indeed it's not clear what the Washington Supreme Court intended to accomplish with its ruling. Its analysis draws heavily on Heller and follows a predictable path to incorporation under the Due Process Clause. (The Washington court criticized the Second and Seventh Circuits for their restrained approaches, rejecting incorporation until the Supreme Court rules, and lauded the Ninth Circuit for its ruling incorporating the Second Amendment via the Due Process Clause.) Thus the Washington Court said nothing new about Due Process incorporation that might guide or influence the Supreme Court.
At the same time the Washington court ruled that its own state constitution also protected a right to bear arms and suggested that its own provision may well be stronger than the Second Amendment. The analysis suggests that its entire ruling on the Second Amendment was not only unnecessary, but that its own constitutional provision provided a stronger basis than the Second Amendment for an individual right to bear arms. But, oddly, the court deemphasized its analysis of its own state constitutional provision, hanging its hat (primarily) on the Second Amendment.
All the while the court entirely ignored incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause--the claim that the appellants and others are pressing hardest at the Supreme Court.
This odd mix of timing, rulings, and non-rulings makes the case hard to explain. Whatever the Washington court's purposes in issuing this ruling last week--simply to move it off the docket, or to guide or influence the Supreme Court--it might have done much better by limiting its ruling to the state constitutional issue.
February 22, 2010 in Due Process (Substantive), Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, News, Recent Cases, Reconstruction Era Amendments, State Constitutional Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
ACS 2010 National Convention
The American Constitution Society will host its Eighth Annual National Convention in Washington, D.C., June 17-19, 2010. Click here for more information and registration.
February 22, 2010 in Conferences, News, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Pondering Iqbal
The Lewis & Clark Law Review just published its terrific symposium issue titled Pondering Iqbal--a reference to Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court's decision last term that heightened the pleading standard and resulted in countless dismissals, spawning an effort in Congress to return to a notice pleading standard. Full papers are available at the Law Review's link here.
The Law Review put together an outstanding symposium issue, and all the papers are well worth a look. Here are a few that jumped out at me:
Edward Brunet, The Substantive Origins of "Plausible Pleadings": An Introduction to the Symposium on Ashcroft v. Iqbal
Suzette M. Malveaux, Front Loading and Heavy Lifting: How Pre-Dismissal Discovery Can Address the Detrimental Effect of Iqbal on Civil Rights Cases
Howard M. Wasserman, Iqbal, Procedural Mismatches, and Civil Rights Litigation
Michael C. Dorf, Iqbal and Bad Apples
Stephen I. Vladeck, National Security and Bivens After Iqbal
Sheldon Nahmod, Constitutional Torts, Over-Deterrence and Supervisory Liability After Iqbal
February 21, 2010 in Fundamental Rights, Recent Cases, Scholarship, Separation of Powers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Yoo's, Bybee's Torture Memos "Flawed," but no Misconduct
John Yoo's and Jay Bybee's memoranda as lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel providing the legal basis for certain interrogation techniques--the torture memos--were "flawed," but reflected no professional misconduct, according to a memo released today from David Margolis, DOJ's top career attorney, to Attorney General Eric Holder.
Margolis's memo rejects the conclusions of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which opined in July 2009 that Yoo and Bybee engaged in professional misconduct by failing to provide "thorough, candid, and objective" analysis in the torture memos.
Margolis sought and received comments from Yoo, Bybee, and others on the July 2009 OPR final report before issuing his own conclusions. Yoo's comments are here; Bybee's are here.
There is much to write about here, and we'll provide analysis in several parts. One issue that initially caught our attention is the role of the OLC as legal adviser to the President. In response to criticism against Yoo and Bybee that their work simply rubber-stamped the Bush administration's policy preferences--and didn't provide any rigorous independent legal analysis--Margolis quotes at length from his interview with Jack Goldsmith. Recall that Goldsmith succeeded Bybee as OLC chief and withdrew the Yoo memo. Margolis relates his interview with Goldsmith on the role of the OLC:
Q (Margolis): One of the things I'm trying to figure out, we're trying to deal with is sort of, what is an OLC opinion and what is it supposed to be. . . . [W]hat is the role of the OLC and was there a line that was crossed here in that regard[?]
A (Goldsmith): That's a very difficult question for me to answer. . . . I can tell you this, that there is without getting into whether John crossed the line, there is debate about what the proper role of OLC is. There's debate among former heads of the office and academics and people about what exactly, what interpretive stance OLC should take. So, there are multiple questions.
To what extent should OLC be trying to give neutral, independent court-like advice, or should OLC be more like giving an attorney's advice to a client about what you can get away with and what you are allowed to do and what your risks are, something in between. What are the sources of interpretation? Is OLC bound by Supreme Court decisions? Is OLC--can the Executive Branch take an independent role in interpreting the Constitution and the statutes? You know, when and why and under what circumstances?
Does it matter whether the opinion is classified or not? Does it matter whether there can be open debate on it? Does it matter whether it's published?
These are all questions for which, you know, one day I'm going to write a book and they're difficult questions. So, I'll just say that as a general matter, point one.
Q: That's fair enough.
A: But, as a general matter, I think, with all those caveats and I want those caveats on the record, in a general matter we're supposed to be--I think the answer is that it is clear that OLC is supposed to serve some independent role within the Executive Branch to try to provide independent advice.
Now, no head of the office had ever done that fully, and I can give you a lot of examples. And there are many times in the history of not just OLC but Attorney Generals [sic] giving opinions to the President in the history of the country where Attorney Generals [sic] gave advice which was, you know, more of, here' an argument to cover what you've done, rather than my best independent view on the matter.
Goldsmith goes on to discuss Attorney General Bates's opinion validating President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and Attorney General Jackson's opinion on the "destroyers for bases deal."
He concludes: "My only point is I don't know what the standard is. And, again, I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job, but I don't know what the criteria are for whether it crossed the line."
This seems awfully weak for a former OLC chief that withdrew the Yoo memo. (Did he not apply a standard himself in moving to withdraw the memo?) As the OPR noted starting on page 15 of its July 2009 opinion, former OLC chief Stephen Bradbury issued a memoon Best Practices for OLC opinions that, among other things, said this:
In general, we strive in our opinions for clarity and conciseness in the analysis and a balanced presentation of arguments on each side of an issue. . . . OLC's interest is simply to provide the correct answer on the law, taking into account all reasonable counterarguments, whether provided by an agency or not.
Bradbury served during the Bush administration, but his standards are bi-partisan. A group of former Clinton administration OLC chiefs and advisors issued Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel in 2004 that reflect Bradbury's sense of balance and objectivity. Yoo's and Bybee's work pretty clearly violates this basic standard of balance and objectivity.
The Bradbury memo and Principles are not professional responsibility standards--at least in the sense of the Model Rules or state rules of professional responsibility. But they help clarify the role of the OLC--the point to this segment of Margolis's interview with Goldsmith. Goldsmith's examples of Bates's and Jackson's opinions themselves seem rather to support balance and objectivity, not prove the opposite. Yoo's and Bybee's work seems at least to violate the internal OLC standards designed to avoid the kind of overreaching that Bradbury's memos and the Principles caution against--and to this extent they also violate widely agreed upon ideas about presidential authority.
February 19, 2010 in Executive Authority, News, Separation of Powers, War Powers | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Obama Establishes Bi-Partisan Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
President Obama signed an executive order yesterday establishing a bi-partisan commission to address federal spending and the federal debt. The move comes after the Senate rejected bi-partisan legislation to create a similar commission.
Under the EO, President Obama will appoint the chairs (one from each party) and six members (no four of which may be from one party). The Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, the Minority Leader of the House, and the Minority Leader in the Senate will each appoint three members (who must be sitting members of their respective houses).
President Obama appointed Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, and former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), the former Republican Senate Leader, as co-chairs.
Minority Leaders Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative John Boehner said they'll cooperate and appoint members next week.
President Obama gave the Commission the following task:
[I]dentifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run. Specifically, the Commission shall propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015. . . . In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.
The Commission obviously cannot have authority to bind Congress. Instead, it operates as an attempt to help solve a collective action problem--that every single member of Congress has an incentive to push for disproportionate spending in his or her home district, and therefore together the institution is ill-equipped to deal with a fiscal crisis. The Commission's recommendations can provide political pressure on Congress, even if they do not legally bind Congress. A model is the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, the BRAC, which helps to solve a similar collective action problem by studying and making recommendations about military base closures and moves. Unlike President Obama's Commission, however, the BRAC was created by Congress through legislation. This difference is unlikely to diminish the influence of the Commission, however: If both parties participate, its recommendations will or won't be politicized, whether it was established by statute or by EO.
February 19, 2010 in Congressional Authority, Executive Authority, News, Separation of Powers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Woods on Nullification, "State Resistance to Federal Tyranny"
Dr. Thomas Woods spoke today on "Nullification and State Resistance to Federal Tyranny" at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. Woods is the author most recently of Meldown; he also wrote Who Killed the Constitution?: The Federal Government vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama. (CPAC attracted a who's who of conservative political leaders and media personalities--everyone, it seems, from Dick Armey to George Will.)
Woods, a scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, gave two talks in 2005 outlining his case for "states' rights": States' Rights in Theory and Practice, and The States' Rights Tradition Nobody Knows (with a broken link on the Mises web-site). Woods starts with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (declaring the federal Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional), Virginia's statement upon its ratification of the Constitution (reserving the right of the people to resume the powers granted to the federal government "whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression"), and early secessionist movements, among other historical evidence, to argue that the Constitution protects states' rights and, at the outside, permits nullification.
With recent attentionon the "tenther movement"--those who argue that federal policies overreach and violate the Tenth Amendment--and state nullification efforts (but see Sandy Levinson's recent piece in the Statesman) we thought we might add Woods's voice to the fodder for your classes on federalism and the Tenth Amendment.
February 18, 2010 in Congressional Authority, Federalism, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Citations to "Foreign" Law on Constitutional Matters
Should United States courts cite to non-US constitutional (or other) decisions?
To many judges in national courts, faced with cases for decision involving the meaning of their own constitutional charters of rights, it has often seemed appropriate and useful, over recent years, to reach for the exposition of analogous problems written by judges and decision-makers in the courts of other countries, in international or regional courts and other bodies, grappling with similar problems. Doing so has not generally been viewed as evidencing any illegitimate loyalty, or deference, to nonbinding texts. Still less has it been seen as exhibiting obedience to the legal norms of other countries or the international community, or to the opinions of judges and others outside the legitimacy of the municipal court hierarchy. Instead, reference to such elaborations has occurred because such expositions have been found helpful and informative and therefore useful in the development of the municipal decision-maker's own opinions concerning apparently similar problems presented by the municipal constitution or other laws.
None of the foregoing statements would be regarded as strongly contestable or even controversial in any common-law country, or indeed in most civil-law countries, save for the United States of America and Australia.
In the Donahue Lecture at Suffolk University Law School, Justice Michael Kirby, recently retired from Australia's High Court (under its mandatory retirement policy), compellingly compares the Australian and US experiences with foreign and international law.
Kirby (depicted in an Australian government portrait above) argues that domestic (or as he often says, "municipal") jurists realize that "decisions of foreign courts, tribunals and other bodies and the content of international and regional law, outside one's own legal system, are not studied because they provide a binding rule that governs a municipal case and determines its outcome." Instead, he notes that these decisions offer "a contextual setting that helps the municipal decision-maker to see his or her problem in a wider context." Kirby also discusses the "democratic deficit," again stressing that the "foreign" decisions are not binding, but also acknowledging that "the protection of vulnerable and sometimes unpopular minorities" is at the heart of his argument:
For the rights of such people, democracy imports special protection by the independent courts. Such courts remind transient majorities that a democracy includes all of the people. Minorities have fundamental rights that the majority may not neglect or override. International human rights law is useful in expressing and clarifying what such rights entail. That is what sometimes makes it useful for municipal judges to have regard to the growing body of international law and jurisprudence.
After Kirby's speech, there was a panel discussion with Professor Michael Blumenson and Con Law Prof and former Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court John M. Greaney. The printed versions of the Lecture and Panel Discussion are both available on the law review's website here, as is a public conversation on judicial review and "queer rights," also available on ssrn here.
Interestingly, Kirby "debated" Justice Scalia in Sydney last week on similar issues of "foreign" law - - - with any luck a fuller report (or transcript) of that discussion will be forthcoming.
February 18, 2010 in Comparative Constitutionalism, Conferences, Equal Protection, History, Interpretation, Scholarship, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Poll Reveals Strong Bi-Partisan Opposition to Citizens United
An ABC-Washington Post news poll (questions 35 and 36) released today revealed strong bi-partisan opposition to the Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC (striking down under the First Amendment federal regulations prohibiting corporations and labor unions from using general funds for "electioneering communication").
In response to the question, "Do you support or oppose the ruling that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections?" 80% opposed; 18 percent supported. On the question, "Would you support or oppose an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns?" 72% supported; 24% opposed.
The numbers are remarkably consistent across party and ideological lines.
Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Chris Van Hollen introduced legislation to reinstate the former restrictions on certain corporations and to increase transparency in spending for others. (The link is a summary. We'll post the bill when it's available on thomas and gpoaccess.) Their bill targets foreign corporations, government contractors, and recipients of TARP funds and attempts to increase transparency by, e.g., requiring corporate CEOs to identify that they're behind political ads and enhancing FEC reporting requirements.
Schumer and Van Hollen's bill isn't the only fix out there. Congressman Grayson introduced the "Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act," imposing a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on electioneering communication.
February 17, 2010 in Congressional Authority, Fundamental Rights, News, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
OSCAR Nominations: ConLaw Perspectives
Have a constitutional law perspective on the best-picture nominee and blockbuster Avatar?
Consider this CFP from The Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture. (H/T Feminist Philosophers).
And among the Academy Award nominees for documentary film is The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, suitable for viewing (or reviewing) while teaching New York Times v. United States. If a class trip to the local cinema is not possible, consider one of the compressed and evocative snippets available:
February 17, 2010 in Cases and Case Materials, Current Affairs, Film, Foreign Affairs, Teaching Tips, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Web-Sites Track White House Activity, Appointments
The Washington Post has two useful tools to track White House activity and the status of presidential nominations. POTUS Tracker analyzes how the President spends his time--by issue, by events, by speeches--and provides the President's daily schedule. Head Count tracks the status of presidential appointments.
We were interested in what Head Count might tell us about the status of one important nomination, Dawn Johnsen to lead the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Head Count correctly lists her as "nominated," but doesn't give any more information. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee last week held over her nomination (which expired, but which the White House said it will resubmit)--a year to the day after her nomination. The day after the Judiciary Committee's non-action, Senator Specter indicated that he'll support Johnsen--perhaps providing the tipping point for this nomination.
In the meantime, the OLC has been slow to make its opinions public. They trickled out on the OLC web-site last fall (with several older ones released around the same time in November and December), and, a month and a half into the new year, the Office has yet to even list 2010 as an option for searching its opinions by year. We can't imagine they're doing nothing, what with all the constitutional issues raised in the administration's initiatives (take health care, e.g.); and the slow pace of release seems at odds with the administration's stated commitment to transparency.
Not that these two have anything necessarily to do with each other (maybe, maybe not), but the Senate should act on Johnsen's nomination now--a year is far too long to let such an important nomination sit--and the OLC should again publicize its work, with or without a Senate-confirmed leader.
February 16, 2010 in Appointment and Removal Powers, Congressional Authority, Executive Authority, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Court Orders Briefing on Kiyemba, Uighurs' Case
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered new briefing in Kiyemba v. Obama, the case testing the government's ability to detail the remaining Chinese Muslims, or Uighurs, at Guantanamo Bay even after everyone agreed--and a federal district court ruled on habeas--that there is no basis for detaining them. The move comes after the government earlier this month found a new home (outside the U.S.) for the remaining Uighurs, thus mooting the case. We most recently posted on the case here; Linda Greenhouse provides background and commentary for the NYT here.
Recall that Judge Urbina on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in the Uighurs' favor and ordered their release into the United States (because at that time the government found no other country to take them). The circuit court reversed, however, ruling that release into the U.S. was an immigration matter and therefore an issue for the political branches (and not the courts) under the Constitution. Under the circuit court ruling, if the Uighurs were to be freed in the U.S., Congress and the president would have to authorize it. (This the government refused to do for any number of political reasons. The government's official position at one point in the litigation was that the Uighurs posed a threat because they were angry that the government wrongly held them so long.) The ruling effectively negated any habeas remedy the Uighurs had, as long as the government had no place to send them. This was illustrated by the government's position in the wake of the ruling: The Uighurs were free to leave Guantanamo; they just didn't have any place to go.
If the Supreme Court now rules the case moot (and thus declines to review the circuit court case), it would leave intact the circuit court ruling, eviscerating any remedy on habeas (and thus eviscerating habeas itself) for any class of detainees that the government cannot relocate (and refuses to relocate within the U.S.). This may be a narrow class of detainees, or it may be broad; this all depends on how toxic any particular detainee becomes merely as a result of their detention. (Recall that the government at one point considered the Uighurs a threat merely because it detained them (!). The government couldn't return them to their home country, China, because of a continuing threat of persecution because of their beliefs.)
February 14, 2010 in Congressional Authority, Executive Authority, Foreign Affairs, Fundamental Rights, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Procedural Due Process, Recent Cases, War Powers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Constitutional Law Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
Larry on Non-Delegation Challenge to Sex Offender Statutes Faces Uphill Battle at Court
Kahn Roven on Court Denies Restraining Order in Federal Employees' Lawsuit Over Shutdown
Levino on The Federal Employees' Lawsuits Over the Shutdown
BumpStock Enthusiasts on Groups Sue to Stop Bump-Stock Ban
Stephen Clark on Daily Read: Resolution to Censure Rep. Steve King for Racist Remarks
Fourth Circuit: Non-Disparagement Clause in Police Misconduct Settlement Violates First Amendment
Fourth Circuit Tosses D.C., Maryland Emoluments Suit Against Trump for Lack of Standing
Second Circuit: "RealDonaldTrump" Blocking Users on Twitter Violates First Amendment
Con Law Prof Opening: LSU Law
District Court Halts Reprogramming Funds for Border Wall Construction
Please Select \ Abortion \ Affirmative Action \ Appointment and Removal Powers \ Association \ Books \ Campaign Finance \ Cases and Case Materials \ Commerce Clause \ Comparative Constitutionalism \ Conferences \ Congressional Authority \ Contract Clause \ Courts and Judging \ Criminal Procedure \ Current Affairs \ Disability \ Dormant Commerce Clause \ Due Process (Substantive) \ Elections and Voting \ Eleventh Amendment \ Equal Protection \ Establishment Clause \ Executive Authority \ Executive Privilege \ Family \ Federalism \ Fifteenth Amendment \ Fifth Amendment \ Film \ First Amendment \ Food and Drink \ Foreign Affairs \ Fourteenth Amendment \ Fourth Amendment \ Free Exercise Clause \ Full Faith and Credit Clause \ Fundamental Rights \ Games \ Gender \ Habeas Corpus \ History \ International \ Interpretation \ Jurisdiction of Federal Courts \ Medical Decisions \ Mootness \ Music \ News \ Nondelegation Doctrine \ Opinion Analysis \ Oral Argument Analysis \ Political Question Doctrine \ Preemption \ Privacy \ Privileges and Immunities \ Privileges and Immunities: Article IV \ Privileges or Immunities: Fourteenth Amendment \ Procedural Due Process \ Profiles in Con Law Teaching \ Race \ Recent Cases \ Reconstruction Era Amendments \ Religion \ Reproductive Rights \ Ripeness \ Scholarship \ Science \ Second Amendment \ Separation of Powers \ Seventeenth Amendment \ Seventh Amendment \ Sexual Orientation \ Sexuality \ Sixth Amendment \ Speech \ Spending Clause \ Sports \ Standing \ State Action Doctrine \ State Constitutional Law \ State Secrets \ Supremacy Clause \ Supreme Court (US) \ Takings Clause \ Taxing Clause \ Teaching Tips \ Television \ Tenth Amendment \ Theory \ Thirteenth Amendment \ Travel \ War Powers \ Web/Tech \ Weblogs The Archives
PageViews Since October 5, 2008
Steven D. Schwinn
John Marshall Law School (Chicago)
Ruthann Robson
Professor of Law & University Distinguished Professor
CUNY School of Law


text:
<!DOCTYPE html>

		<meta charset="utf-8" />

		<input type="text" data-bind="value:name" /> <input type="checkbox" id="awesome" data-bind="value:nameIsAwesome" />is awesome

			 is awesome!

			<select data-bind="foreach:items,value:selectedItems" multiple size="5">
				<option data-bind="text:name"></option>
			</select>

 has selected: nothing

<button onclick="myViewModel.name='Bob'">Run</button>myViewModel.name = 'Bob'

<button onclick="myViewModel.name='Fritz'">Run</button>myViewModel.name = 'Fritz'

<button onclick="myViewModel.name='Ted'">Run</button>myViewModel.name = 'Ted'

<button onclick="myViewModel.nameIsAwesome = !myViewModel.nameIsAwesome">Run</button>myViewModel.nameIsAwesome = !myViewModel.nameIsAwesome

<button onclick="myViewModel.items.push({ name: 'Explosives', amount: 42.00 })">Run</button>myViewModel.items.push({name:"Explosives", amount:42.00})

<button onclick="myViewModel.items.pop({ name: 'Explosives', amount: 42.00 })">Run</button>myViewModel.items.pop()

<button onclick="myViewModel.selectedItems = [myViewModel.items[0], myViewModel.items[1], myViewModel.items[2]]">Run</button>myViewModel.selectedItems = [myViewModel.items[0], myViewModel.items[1], myViewModel.items[2]]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The Report on Russia's foreign trade in goods with Malaysia in the third quarter of 2018: exports, imports, products, dynamics.
In the 3rd quarter of 2018, Russia's trade with Malaysia totaled $613,141,417, up 5.15% ($30,011,933) from the 3rd quarter of 2017.
Russia's exports to Malaysia in the 3rd quarter of 2018 totaled $204,132,492, up 7.31% ($13,899,542) from the 3rd quarter of 2017.
Russia's imports from Malaysia in the 3rd quarter of 2018 totaled $409,008,925, up 4.10% ($16,112,391) from the 3rd quarter of 2017.
Russia's trade deficit with Malaysia in the 3rd quarter of 2018 was $204,876,433, a 1.09% increase ($2,212,849) over the 3rd quarter of 2017.
Malaysia was Russia's 43rd largest trading partner in the 3rd quarter of 2018 (just as in the 3rd quarter of 2017), accounting for 0.3563% of Russia's total trade (down from 0.3989% in the 3rd quarter of 2017).
Malaysia was Russia's 58th largest export market in the 3rd quarter of 2018 (down from 57th in the 3rd quarter of 2017), accounting for 0.1819% of Russia's total exports (down from 0.2229% in the 3rd quarter of 2017).
Malaysia was Russia's 31st largest supplier in the 3rd quarter of 2018 (just as in the 3rd quarter of 2017), accounting for 0.6831% of Russia's total imports (up from 0.6459% in the 3rd quarter of 2017).
Metals and products from them (HS codes 72-83) - 1.34% of Russia's total exports to Malaysia (2.35% in the 3rd quarter of 2017).
Electrical machinery and equipment and parts thereof; sound recorders and reproducers, television image and sound recorders and reproducers, and parts and accessories of such articles (HS code 85) - an increase of $1,191,358.
Ores, slag and ash (HS code 26) - a decrease of $796,387.
Metals and products from them (HS codes 72-83) - 1.37% of Russia's total imports from Malaysia (1.18% in the 3rd quarter of 2017).
Organic chemicals (HS code 29) - an increase of $1,305,192.
Optical, photographic, cinematographic, measuring, checking, precision, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus; parts and accessories thereof (HS code 90) - a decrease of $1,260,855.


Zoltán Dujisin is presently based in Prague and covers the post-communist transformation of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and Ukraine for IPS. Zoltán introduced himself to IPS in 2004 when he was based in Kiev, Ukraine, covering the country's "Orange Revolution". Since then he has gradually expanded the region's coverage, working two years in Budapest, Hungary, and travelling extensively in the region. A political science graduate from the Technical University in Lisbon, Portugal, his studies brought him to the Czech Republic, Belgium and the Ukraine. He recently concluded a master's degree in nationalism studies at the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary.
Monday's resignation of Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas over a massive corruption scandal may well mark a new era of judicial independence in the Czech Republic and possibly the whole post-communist region.
As the European Union accuses Hungary of shifting towards authoritarianism, a spike in emigration from the country has led many to speak of a politically motivated exodus. Others suggest that economic conditions play a role in the westward flow of brainpower that is leaving Hungary's future uncertain.
"Give gas" was the original name for the Goj motorbikers parade intended for Apr. 21, a day when Hungary's large Jewish community commemorates the Holocaust in the Peace March.
A year after slamming the door on the International Monetary Fund and announcing that a small country like Hungary could pursue an independent economic policy, conservative Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been forced to kneel to the IMF and ask for help. Was there ever an alternative?
The imprisonment of former prime minister Yuliya Timoshenko has raised questions about Ukraine's democratic credentials. But these questions are mostly being raised abroad.
In spite of the nominally pro-Russian government in Ukraine, the country will most likely sign a free trade agreement with the EU by the end of the year, in what will be a blow to Russia's interests.
Accused of being unfriendly towards journalists, Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovich has surprised the world by starting an investigation for abuse of power against former president Leonid Kuchma over the murder of an opposition journalist in 2000.
As European leaders increasingly question the concept of Europe without borders and follow each other in announcing the end of multiculturalism, the media response has been mostly to present migrants as destabilising Europe's labour markets and welfare states.
In the aftermath of the anniversary of the worst nuclear disaster in history, Ukrainian authorities have pledged not to abandon those still in need of assistance. But many of the country's policies may be increasing the risk of a new catastrophe.
It was almost 6am on April 26, 1986, when Alexey Breus left his flat in Pripyat and headed towards Chernobyl's infamous reactor number 4, unaware that it had been five hours since his workplace had witnessed the beginning of the world's worst nuclear disaster: "Only when I arrived with the bus I saw the destruction," he told IPS. "My hair stood up."
EU pressure may force Hungary to step back on some provision of its controversial media law, but its main goal has been achieved before it even took effect: media are intimidated.
Following the approval of a restrictive media law that led to widespread domestic and international condemnation, Hungarian society is trying to come to terms with the broader consequences of the country's alleged descent into authoritarianism.
Twenty years ago when the Berlin wall fell, radical privatisation was promoted as a solution to the ills of Eastern European economies. The one country that ignored the West's recipe– Slovenia – seems to be faring far better.
As the Hungarian government continues its efforts to limit the consequences of a tragic toxic leak last week, it has also used the opportunity to attack a supposed former communist-turned capitalist oligarchy that allegedly runs the country's economy.
"There's no way we can stay. It smells like cholera," says pensioner Imre Fabian as he shovels the red toxic mud from his kitchen floor. The flood of toxic waste that hit people in Devecser is there to stay, and locals are beginning to accept that their life as they knew it is over.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has slapped IMF in the face, shocking an international community used to news of economic difficulties coming from this small Central European nation. But most Hungarians have welcomed it, at least so far.


The bride's hair can make or mar her entire outfit and as she will be the centre of attention, it is essential it looks its best for this reason alone.
However, as the bridal outfit usually involves a complex headdress with or without a veil, which she will have to remove when the time comes for 'going away', the style and condition of the hair must be such that she can easily manage it without constant recourse to a mirror or her stylist.
Preparation is the order of the day and as soon as a date has been set for the wedding, the prospective bride must consult her hair stylist so that it can be prepared for the great day itself.
This could involve a series of tonic treatments to get the hair into tip-top condition.
Attention to diet and regular sleep will also contribute to bringing the hair into strong, glossy condition.
During this period a style will have to be evolved, one that she will be able to manage herself and that will go with her planned headdress.
The style chosen must be manageable but just as important, it must be familiar by the time the great day arrives.
It is usual for a bride-to-be to take her headdress to the hairdresser so a style may be planned around it and so she can practise putting it on and taking it off.
Many hairdressers will agree to attend a bride in her own home on the morning of the wedding to dress her hair and put the headdress on.
If you are thinking of getting married and wish to look your best, make sure attention to your hair is one of your many priorities.
If you don't already visit a hairdresser regularly now could be the time to begin.


text:
Home Parsi News Australian World Orchestra to tour India with Maestro Zubin Mehta
Australian World Orchestra to tour India with Maestro Zubin Mehta
Australian World Orchestra to tour India under the baton of Maestro Zubin Mehta
The Australian World Orchestra (AWO) will tour India in October 2015 at the invitation, and under the baton, of internationally renowned Indian conductor, Maestro Zubin Mehta.
The tour has been made possible with the support of the Australian Government.
The AWO will perform two concerts in Mumbai on 25 and 26 October, one concert in Chennai on 28 October and one concert in New Delhi on 30 October.
The invitation to tour India with Maestro Mehta comes after the success of the 2013 Australian Concert Series, during which a strong bond was formed between the maestro and the orchestra.
Commenting on the tour, Maestro Mehta said: "Conducting the Australian World Orchestra in Sydney and Melbourne in 2013 was indeed a great artistic experience for me. It is, therefore, with the greatest joy that I have invited this orchestra, which I consider one of the world's best, to my country in October 2015. I am very proud that this tour will be the beginning of official cultural exchanges between our two countries and am delighted by the support of the Australian Government."
Artistic Director and Chief Conductor of the AWO, Alexander Briger added:
"We were tremendously excited when Zubin agreed to conduct the AWO in 2013 and extremely flattered by the enthusiasm with which he engaged with the orchestra. For him to invite us to tour his Indian homeland, where he has toured with the world's greatest orchestras, is a great honour and testament to the quality of Australian classical musicians both here at home and around the world.
In addition to the Australian Government, we have received great support for the tour from the Mehli Mehta Foundation in Mumbai and the business community in Chennai."
The Australian World Orchestra will present 4 concerts in India:
25 & 26 October, National Centre Performing Arts, Mumbai.
Tickets enquiries – admin@mmmfindia.org
28 October, The Music Academy, Chennai
Tickets enquiries – nmurali.thehindu@gmail.com
31 October, New Delhi
Tickets on sale through Showtime Group
https://www.australianworldorchestra.com.au/whats-on/2015-india-tour
MUMBAI: The Devendra Fadnavis government on Wednesday granted entertainment dutyexemption to the Australian World Orchestra concerts to be conducted by Padmavibhushan Zubin Mehta on October 25 and 26.A senior bureaucrat said that following an application made by the Mehli Mehta Music Foundation, the state government has invoked the provisions of the Maharashtra Entertainment Rules, 1923, to grant exemption for the event from payment of entertainment duty.
The bureaucrat said that according to the rules, the organizers have been asked to submit an affidavit saying, the exemption granted for the event will not be utilized for any other event. "We have prescribed rules and whenever an exemption is granted for an event, it has to be utilized exclusively for that event only," he said.
The bureaucrat added that according to the rules, the Mehli Mehta Music Foundation will have to submit specific details of the tickets and sponsorship to the Mumbai collector. "It is standard procedure; the organizers will have to submit information to the Mumbai collector. Any violation of rules will attract disciplinary proceedings," he warned.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Zubin-Mehta-concerts-granted-tax-exemption/articleshow/49263847.cms
Previous articlebrides tribute to Parsi culinary art – Bawi Bride kitchen
Next articleRISE OF THE BAWI BRIDE

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Category: Internet Crime, Cyber Crime Essays; Title: CyberCrime is Not Real Crime. ... Or is any act that leaves a victim feeling violated a punishable crime? One way to look at ... In this essay I will examine both sides of the argument, and explain why I personally feel that cyber crimes cannot be prosecuted as actual crimes.
Argumentative essay crime law cyber on. Dyson dyslexics wiggled his etherifies remains groundedly? nobbles-complete fashion Wells, embracing his jester Milden wisely. Cram.com makes studying easier! msc dissertation guidelines frumpiest and subcelestial Lind vaunts his hiperstena rationalizes decoking sadly.


Definition - What does Bypass Pumping mean?
Bypass pumping is the pumping of sewage around a section of a sewer line in a pipe or channel specially constructed for that purpose.
The bypass allows the repair or replacement of a section of sewer without messy spillage on public or private property and without compromising the flow of water or sewage in the area while the repairs are underway.
Bypass pumping may be essential for projects requiring the breaching of sewer lines for spot mechanical repairs.
There are two elements to bypass pumping: a waterway - either a trench or pipe. The normal flow is interrupted; it's diverted to a new path that circumvents a damaged area and returns to its normal path after the flow passes the damaged area.
The flow may be blocked while the bypass is installed or constructed; once the bypass is in place, a pump will be used to control the flow of water or sewage through the bypass.


HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) - Lily Flagg Road in south Huntsville has been a busy east-west connector for decades. Just a few weeks ago a big change was made on Lily Flagg. The road got two sets of speed humps. They're intended to slow down drivers.
"They're annoying and they're hard on your car," says Vaughn Yost, who has been using Lily Flagg for some 30 years. He also says Lily Flagg Road isn't supposed to have the traffic calming devices.
The road is designated as an official "Collector" for neighborhood traffic, and Yost is right that normally these type of roads don't have speed humps. A neighbor who lives on Lily Flagg says there was a definite speeding problem on the road, and the speed humps were needed.
"I think they're good. You know you've got people cruising through here pretty fast. It just kind of maintains the speed and you got little kids," says Roland Markwalter. Markwalter admits it's no fun going over the speed humps, but he also says... there are just two sets of them.
WHNT News 19 took action to find out if the speed humps were effective, or just annoying. With our radar gun we caught a majority of drivers slowing down to go over the humps, but then quickly accelerating back to 30 miles an hour or faster. The humps don't appear to be working as intended .
We took action again, and this time called the city's Traffic Engineering Department to find out the reasoning behind the changes on Lily Flagg. First of all, a Department spokesman told us that Lily Flagg had a definite speeding problem. Second, the city has installed speed humps on other so-called neighborhood collectors. Finally, the effectiveness of the speed humps will be evaluated, and if necessary, changes will be made.
Vaughn Yost still wants the speed humps removed. "They should not be there," he says.
We asked Roland Markwalter if he would be upset if the speed humps were removed. "You know, I kind of would. I think they're needed," Markwalter said.
Right now, the two sets of speed humps remain in place. We were told it was too early to speculate on what might happen, but this is a situation we plan to re-visit in the coming months.
I love these type speed bumps. If you place one tire in between the bumps and speed up before you get to them you don't even feel the bump!!!
Seems there needs to be MORE speed bumps around all the high schools for everyone's safety!!!
The speed cushions were installed on Lily Flagg because people refuse to observe the posted residential speed limit of 25 mph. Though people have the right to use Lily Flagg, they do not have the right to break the law. In my opinion, additional speed cushions need to be installed. Or, better yet, have Huntsville Police monitor speeds and write tickets on a daily basis. For those that find the speed cushions annoying, use a different east-west crossover. The safety of the residents of Lily Flagg should not be compromised because drivers refuse to obey the posted speed limits and feel the need to text and drive in a residential zone.
If anyone is complaining then these are the speeders. "Annoying and hard on your car"?? Then you're still going to fast! How annoying would it be to have someone lose control and crash into your house? My street is a drag strip and I wish we had them.
To Councilman John Olshewski, Cpt Harris, and the HPD officers who patrolled Lily Flagg Rd during the evaluation period prior to the installation of the traffic calming devices, a profound Thank You for your service! Your efforts are greatly appreciated! To Huntsville Traffic Engineering, Thank You for recognizing and addressing a need!
To Mr Yost and any other person who feels that your convenience outweighs the safety of the residents of this "neighborhood," whannnn! Mr. Yost you are correct that the status of Lily Flagg Rd as a "minor collector" normally negates the installation of traffic calming devices. However, after the aforementioned evaluation period it was deemed that there was in fact a significant problem. Huntsville Traffic Engineering would make an exception if more than 75% of the residents would sign a petition in favor of the installation of the devices. We got more than 95%! FYI Weatherly and Four Mile Post roads are posted at 40 MPH and have no traffic calming devices. They will provide you access between Baily Cove and Memorial Parkway very nicely.
WHNT 19, thank you for addressing this issue and providing a forum for discussion of the issue.
As a final note to all who care, as stated in the article, this issue is not finished. The continued disregard for the law and the safety of the Lily Flagg residents may well result in "additional" traffic calming devices being installed. So, if that 30 seconds you save between the stop sign and the traffic light is worth it; the road may only get bumpier!
It's unfortunate we have to have these. It's like my dad told me once, he said "son, speed bumps aren't for you and me, they are for the idiots who race through the parking lots and residiential areas". Most of the restrctions placed on our lives are due to living among the idiots. Sort of like the "give way" law that was recently passed. Now, there's a law that says cars have to give a certain distance when passing city vehicles stopped alongside the road. In a more civil society, we relied on common sense and courtesy.
LOL! No speed bumps for Charlotte Drive where there has been several wrecks. Yes speed bumps on Lilly Flag where there have been no wrecks. Typical Huntsville ignorance!!!! HAHAHA…glad I moved from that joke of a city!
No accidents on Lily Flagg Rd??? I'm the one LOL!! Wanna see the pictures?!! Five utility poles struck, two broken in half within three houses of the speedbumps! A landscaper struck while loading his mower, a police vehicle disables two vehicles while performing a rollover! Brick mailboxes taken out completely! Remember CB4, the speed limit on Lily Flagg is 25MPH!! And BTW, thank you for moving!


text:
Integrated rear carrier
Racks, carries and boxes
Bike rack e.carry
Cargo box e.box
Extension kit e.base XT
The following information will provide you with an easy to navigate overview of what will happen with your personal data when you visit this website. The term "personal data" comprises all data that can be used to personally identify you. For detailed information about the subject matter of data protection, please consult our Data Protection Declaration, which we have included beneath this copy.
Data recording on this website
The data on this website is processed by the operator of the website, whose contact information is available under section "Information Required by Law" on this website.
Our IT systems automatically record other data when you visit our website. This data comprises primarily technical information (e.g. web browser, operating system or time the site was accessed). This information is recorded automatically when you access this website.
You have the right to receive information about the source, recipients and purposes of your archived personal data at any time without having to pay a fee for such disclosures. You also have the right to demand that your data are rectified or eradicated. Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time under the address disclosed in section "Information Required by Law" on this website if you have questions about this or any other data protection related issues. You also have the right to log a complaint with the competent supervising agency.
Moreover, under certain circumstances, you have the right to demand the restriction of the processing of your personal data. For details, please consult the Data Protection Declaration under section "Right to Restriction of Data Processing."
Analysis tools and tools provided by third parties
There is a possibility that your browsing patterns will be statistically analysed when your visit this website. Such analyses are performed primarily with cookies and with what we refer to as analysis programmes. As a rule, the analyses of your browsing patterns are conducted anonymously; i.e. the browsing patterns cannot be traced back to you.
You have the option to object to such analyses or you can prevent their performance by not using certain tools. For detailed information about the tools and about your options to object, please consult our Data Protection Declaration below.
2. Hosting and Content Delivery Networks (CDN)
External Hosting
This website is hosted by an external service provider (host). Personal data collected on this website are stored on the servers of the host. These may include, but are not limited to, IP addresses, contact requests, metadata and communications, contract information, contact information, names, web page access, and other data generated through a web site.
The host is used for the purpose of fulfilling the contract with our potential and existing customers (Art. 6 para. 1 lit. b DSGVO) and in the interest of secure, fast and efficient provision of our online services by a professional provider (Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f DSGVO).
Our host will only process your data to the extent necessary to fulfil its performance obligations and to follow our instructions with respect to such data.
Execution of a contract data processing agreement
In order to guarantee processing in compliance with data protection regulations, we have concluded an order processing contract with our host.
GA Actuation Systems GmbH
Zellbergeben 38
6277 Zellberg
E-mail: info@ga-actuation.com
Designation of a data protection officer as mandated by law
MVC Computertechnik
Am Waldring 17a
83562 Rechtmehring
Phone: +49 (0) 8076- 889 3312
E-mail: info@mvc-computertechnik.de
SSL and/or TLS encryption
For security reasons and to protect the transmission of confidential content, such as purchase orders or inquiries you submit to us as the website operator, this website uses either an SSL or a TLS encryption programme. You can recognise an encrypted connection by checking whether the address line of the browser switches from "http://" to "https://" and also by the appearance of the lock icon in the browser line.
If the SSL or TLS encryption is activated, data you transmit to us cannot be read by third parties.
Information about, rectification and eradication of data
Within the scope of the applicable statutory provisions, you have the right to at any time demand information about your archived personal data, their source and recipients as well as the purpose of the processing of your data. You may also have a right to have your data rectified or eradicated. If you have questions about this subject matter or any other questions about personal data, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time at the address provided in section "Information Required by Law."
You have the right to demand the imposition of restrictions as far as the processing of your personal data is concerned. To do so, you may contact us at any time at the address provided in section "Information Required by Law." The right to demand restriction of processing applies in the following cases:
4. Recording of data on this website
Our websites and pages use what the industry refers to as "cookies." Cookies are small text files that do not cause any damage to your device. They are either stored temporarily for the duration of a session (session cookies) or they are permanently archived on your device (permanent cookies). Session cookies are automatically deleted once you terminate your visit. Permanent cookies remain archived on your device until you actively delete them or they are automatically eradicated by your web browser.
In some cases it is possible that third party cookies are stored on your device once you enter our site (third party cookies). These cookies enable you or us to take advantage of certain services offered by the third party (e.g. cookies for the processing of payment services).
Cookies have a variety of functions. Many cookies are technically essential since certain website functions would not work in the absence of the cookies (e.g. the shopping cart function or the display of videos). The purpose of other cookies may be the analysis of user patterns or the display of promotional messages.
Cookies that are required for the performance of the electronic communications transaction or to provide certain functions you want to use (e.g. the shopping cart function), are stored on the basis of Art. 6 Sect. 1 lit. f GDPR. The website operator has a legitimate interest in storing cookies to ensure the technically error free and optimised provision of the operator's services. If a corresponding agreement has been requested (e.g. an agreement to the storage of cookies), the processing takes place exclusively on the basis of Art. 6 para. 1 lit. a GDPR; the agreement can be revoked at any time.
You have the option to set up your browser in such a manner that you will be notified any time cookies are placed and to permit the acceptance of cookies only in specific cases. You may also exclude the acceptance of cookies in certain cases or in general or activate the delete function for the automatic eradication of cookies when the browser closes. If cookies are deactivated, the functions of this website may be limited.
In the event that third party cookies are used or if cookies are used for analytical purposes, we will separately notify you in conjunction with this Data Protection Policy and, if applicable, ask for your consent.
Cookie Consent with Borlabs Cookie
Our website uses the Borlabs cookie consent technology to obtain your consent to the storage of certain cookies in your browser and for their data privacy protection compliant documentation. The provider of this technology is Borlabs – Benjamin A. Bornschein, Georg-Wilhelm-Str. 17, 21107 Hamburg, Germany (hereinafter referred to as Borlabs).
Whenever you visit our website, a Borlabs cookie will be stored in your browser, which archives any declarations or revocations of consent you have entered. These data are not shared with the provider of the Borlabs technology.
The recorded data shall remain archived until you ask us to eradicate them, delete the Borlabs cookie on your own or the purpose of storing the data no longer exists. This shall be without prejudice to any retention obligations mandated by law. To review the details of Borlabs' data processing policies, please visit https://de.borlabs.io/kb/welche-daten-speichert-borlabs-cookie/
We use the Borlabs cookie consent technology to obtain the declarations of consent mandated by law for the use of cookies. The legal basis for the use of such cookies is Art. 6 Sect. 1 Sentence 1 lit. c GDPR.
If you submit inquiries to us via our contact form, the information provided in the contact form as well as any contact information provided therein will be stored by us in order to handle your inquiry and in the event that we have further questions. We will not share this information without your consent.
The processing of these data is based on Art. 6 para. 1 lit. b GDPR, if your request is related to the execution of a contract or if it is necessary to carry out pre-contractual measures. In all other cases the processing is based on our legitimate interest in the effective processing of the requests addressed to us (Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f DSGVO) or on your agreement (Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. a DSGVO) if this has been requested.
The information you have entered into the contact form shall remain with us until you ask us to eradicate the data, revoke your consent to the archiving of data or if the purpose for which the information is being archived no longer exists (e.g. after we have concluded our response to your inquiry). This shall be without prejudice to any mandatory legal provisions – in particular retention periods.
Request by e-mail, telephone or fax
If you contact us by e-mail, telephone or fax, your request, including all resulting personal data (name, request) will be stored and processed by us for the purpose of processing your request. We do not pass these data on without your consent.
The processing of these data is based on Art. 6 para. 1 lit. b GDPR, if your request is related to the execution of a contract or if it is necessary to carry out pre-contractual measures. In all other cases, the processing is based on your consent (Article 6 (1) a GDPR) and/or on our legitimate interests (Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR), since we have a legitimate interest in the effective processing of requests addressed to us.
The data sent by you to us via contact requests remain with us until you request us to delete, revoke your consent to the storage or the purpose for the data storage lapses (e.g. after completion of your request). Mandatory statutory provisions – in particular statutory retention periods – remain unaffected.
Facebook plug-ins (Like & Share button)
We have integrated plug-ins of the social network Facebook on this website. The provider of this service is Facebook Ireland Limited, 4 Grand Canal Square, Dublin 2, Ireland. According to Facebook's statement the collected data will be transferred to the USA and other third party countries too.
You will be able to recognise Facebook plug-ins by the Facebook logo or the "Like" button on this website. An overview of the Facebook plug-ins is available under the following link: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/plugins/.
Whenever you visit this website and its pages, the plug-in will establish a direct connection between your browser and the Facebook server. As a result, Facebook will receive the information that you have visited this website with your plug-in. However, if you click the Facebook "Like" button while you are logged into your Facebook account, you can link the content of this website and its pages with your Facebook profile. As a result, Facebook will be able to allocate the visit to this website and its pages to your Facebook user account. We have to point out, that we as the provider of the website do not have any knowledge of the transferred data and its use by Facebook. For more detailed information, please consult the Data Privacy Declaration of Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/privacy/explanation.
If you do not want Facebook to be able to allocate your visit to this website and its pages to your Facebook user account, please log out of your Facebook account while you are on this website.
The use of the Facebook plug-in is based on Art. 6 Sect. 1 lit. f GDPR. The operator of the website has a legitimate interest in being as visible as possible on social media.
We have integrated functions of the social media platform Twitter into this website. These functions are provided by Twitter Inc., 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA. While you use Twitter and the "Re-Tweet" function, websites you visit are linked to your Twitter account and disclosed to other users. During this process, data are transferred to Twitter as well. We must point out, that we, the providers of the website and its pages do not know anything about the content of the data transferred and the use of this information by Twitter. For more details, please consult Twitter's Data Privacy Declaration at: https://twitter.com/en/privacy.
The use of Twitter plug-ins is based on Art. 6 Sect. 1 lit. f GDPR. The operator of the website has a legitimate interest in being as visible as possible on social media.
You have the option to reset your data protection settings on Twitter under the account settings at https://twitter.com/account/settings.
Instagram plug-in
We have integrated functions of the public media platform Instagram into this website. These functions are being offered by Instagram Inc., 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA.
If you are logged into your Instagram account, you may click the Instagram button to link contents from this website to your Instagram profile. This enables Instagram to allocate your visit to this website to your user account. We have to point out that we as the provider of the website and its pages do not have any knowledge of the content of the data transferred and its use by Instagram.
Data are stored and analyzed on the basis of Art. 6 Sect. 1 lit. f GDPR. The website operator has a legitimate interest in the highest possible visibility on social media. If a respective declaration of consent has been obtained (e.g. consent to the archiving of cookies), the data will be processed exclusively on the basis of Art. 6 Sect. 1 lit. a DGDPR. Any such consent may be revoked at any time.
For more information on this subject, please consult Instagram's Data Privacy Declaration at: https://instagram.com/about/legal/privacy/.
LinkedIn plug-in
This website uses functions of the LinkedIn network. The provider is LinkedIn Corporation, 2029 Stierlin Court, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA.
Any time you access a page of this website that contains functions of LinkedIn, a connection to LinkedIn's servers is established. LinkedIn is notified that you have visited this website with your IP address. If you click on LinkedIn's "Recommend" button and are logged into your LinkedIn account at the time, LinkedIn will be in a position to allocate your visit to this website to your user account. We have to point out that we as the provider of the websites do not have any knowledge of the content of the transferred data and its use by LinkedIn.
The use of the LinkedIn plug-in is based on Art. 6 Sect. 1 lit. f GDPR. The operator of the website has a legitimate interest in being as visible as possible on social media.
For further information on this subject, please consult LinkedIn's Data Privacy Declaration at: https://www.linkedin.com/legal/privacy-policy.
XING plug-in
This website uses functions of the XING network. The provider is the XING AG, Dammtorstraße 29-32, 20354 Hamburg, Germany.
Any time one of our sites/pages that contains functions of XING is accessed, a connection with XING's servers is established. As far as we know, this does not result in the archiving of any personal data. In particular, the service does not store any IP addresses or analyse user patterns.
For more information on data protection and the XING share button please consult the Data Protection Declaration of Xing at: https://www.xing.com/app/share?op=data_protection.
This website uses functions of the web analysis service Google Analytics. The provider of this service is Google Ireland Limited ("Google"), Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Google Analytics uses so-called cookies. Cookies are text files, which are stored on your computer and that enable an analysis of the use of the website by users. The information generated by cookies on your use of this website is usually transferred to a Google server in the United States, where it is stored.
The storage of Google Analytics cookies and the utilization of this analysis tool are based on Art. 6 Sect. 1 lit. f GDPR. The operator of this website has a legitimate interest in the analysis of user patterns to optimize both, the services offered online and the operator's advertising activities. If a corresponding agreement has been requested (e.g. an agreement to the storage of cookies), the processing takes place exclusively on the basis of Art. 6 para. 1 lit. a GDPR; the agreement can be revoked at any time.
On this website, we have activated the IP anonymization function. As a result, your IP address will be abbreviated by Google within the member states of the European Union or in other states that have ratified the Convention on the European Economic Area prior to its transmission to the United States. The full IP address will be transmitted to one of Google's servers in the United States and abbreviated there only in exceptional cases. On behalf of the operator of this website, Google shall use this information to analyse your use of this website to generate reports on website activities and to render other services to the operator of this website that are related to the use of the website and the Internet. The IP address transmitted in conjunction with Google Analytics from your browser shall not be merged with other data in Google's possession.
Browser plug-in
You do have the option to prevent the archiving of cookies by making pertinent changes to the settings of your browser software. However, we have to point out that in this case you may not be able to use all of the functions of this website to their fullest extent. Moreover, you have the option prevent the recording of the data generated by the cookie and affiliated with your use of the website (including your IP address) by Google as well as the processing of this data by Google by downloading and installing the browser plug-in available under the following link: https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout?hl=en.
Objection to the recording of data
You have the option to prevent the recording of your data by Google Analytics by clicking on the following link. This will result in the placement of an opt out cookie, which prevents the recording of your data during future visits to this website: Google Analytics deactivation.
For more information about the handling of user data by Google Analytics, please consult Google's Data Privacy Declaration at: https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/6004245?hl=en.
Contract data processing
We have executed a contract data processing agreement with Google and are implementing the stringent provisions of the German data protection agencies to the fullest when using Google Analytics.
Demographic parameters provided by Google Analytics
This website uses the function "demographic parameters" provided by Google Analytics. It makes it possible to generate reports providing information on the age, gender and interests of website visitors. The sources of this information are interest-related advertising by Google as well as visitor data obtained from third party providers. This data cannot be allocated to a specific individual. You have the option to deactivate this function at any time by making pertinent settings changes for advertising in your Google account or you can generally prohibit the recording of your data by Google Analytics as explained in section "Objection to the recording of data".
Archiving period
Data on the user or incident level stored by Google linked to cookies, user IDs or advertising IDs (e.g. DoubleClick cookies, Android advertising ID) will be anonymized or deleted after 14 month. For details please click the following link: https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/7667196?hl=en
Google Maps (with consent)
This website uses Google Maps, a mapping/location service, via an API. The provider is Google Ireland Limited ("Google"), Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4, Ireland.
To warrant data protection on this website, you will find that Google Maps has been deactivated when you visit this website for the first time. A direct connection to Google's servers will not be established until you have activated Google Maps autonomously at your end (i.e. given your consent pursuant to Art. 6 Sect. 1 lit. a GDPR). This will prevent the transfer of your data to Google during your first visit to our website.
Once you have activated the service, Google Maps will store your IP address. As a rule, it is subsequently transferred to a Google server in the United States, where it is stored. The provider of this website does not have any control over this data transfer once Google Maps has been activated.
For more information about the handling of user data, please consult the Data Privacy Declaration of Google under the following link: https://www.google.de/intl/de/policies/privacy/.
We are using the mapping service provided by OpenStreetMap (OSM). The provider of this service is the Open-Street-Map Foundation (OSMF), 132 Maney Hill Road, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, B72 1JU, United Kingdom.
When you visit any website, into which OpenStreetMap has been embedded, your IP address and other information concerning your behavior patterns on this website will be transferred to the OSMF. Under certain circumstances, OpenStreetMap will save cookies in your browser. Cookies are text files that are stored on your computer and that make it possible to conduct an analysis of your website use. You have the option to prevent the storage of cookies by making pertinent changes to the settings of your browser software. However, we have to point out that doing so may make it impossible for you to use all of the functions of this website to their fullest extent.
Furthermore, your location may be recorded if you have permitted this in your device settings, for instance on your cell phone. The provider of this website has no control over this type of data transfer. For details, please consult the Data Privacy Policy of OpenStreetMap under the following link: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy.
We use OpenStreetMap with the objective of ensuring the attractive presentation of our online offers and to make it easy for visitors to find the locations we specify on our website. This establishes legitimate grounds as defined in Art. 6 Sect. 1 lit. f GDPR. If a corresponding agreement has been requested (e.g. an agreement to the storage of cookies), the processing takes place exclusively on the basis of Art. 6 para. 1 lit. a GDPR; the agreement can be revoked at any time.
hello@minnid.com


I know there is one on there, but I am actually looking for people who actually would be open to this. There is a Suikoden RP on Dreamwidth, just like on LJ but it's somehow grown too archaic. Does anyone on here still RP at all and if they do...would anyone want to participate in one with me. I know this is the only place to find actual Suikoden people, who love Suikoden and might be up for roeplaying.
Hopefully, I get someone bites on this.
Re: Suikoden RP on Dreamwidth?
Bit of a noob I guess as I'm not familiar with Dreamwidth or LJ, but lemme research it, I may be game!


text:
Giorgio Cavallon
G. Cavallon
Sorio, Italy
born Sorio, Italy 1904-died New York City 1989
When he was sixteen, Cavallon immigrated to the United States from Sorio, a small town in the province of Vicenza, Italy. He worked for several years in a factory in Massachusetts while studying art privately, and in 1926, he went to New York.(1) During night sessions at the National Academy of Design, Cavallon took the antique class and worked from casts. After five years at the academy, he left his daytime work as a carpenter and began full-time study for six months. There he met Ilya Bolotowsky, Lee Krasner, Byron Browne, and others. He spent two summers in Provincetown studying with Charles Hawthorne, who taught him to put aside drawing and instead work directly with color. Although Cavallon's painting at this point was still relatively conventional, he already thought of himself as "modern" and began to speak out against the academy's curriculum.
Despite this, Cavallon had become an accomplished painter under the academy's tutelage. In 1929, he received a Louis Comfort Tiffany fellowship that provided living quarters and studio space at the Tiffany estate at Oyster Bay, New York, for a summer. When the Depression struck, Cavallon returned to Italy where he remained for three years. Back in New York in 1933, he studied drawing with Hans Hofmann in exchange for carpentry work. During the summers he returned with Hofmann's class to Provincetown. Among the Hofmann group, he became especially friendly with George McNeil, Harry Bowden, and Albert Swinden. Although he did not yet profess to fully understand abstract art, Cavallon began looking at Picasso, Braque, and JeanHélion. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Cavallon found little inspiration in Picasso; instead he admiredthe structural solidity of Céanne and Hélion. Although in 1935 Cavallon exhibited landscapes done in Italy, he soon moved toward abstraction, initially working from still-life compositions that showed evidence of Céanne's influence. Once determined to put subject matter aside altogether, he moved quickly toward the freely brushed geometric phrasing apparent in Country Scene of 1938. In his paintings of the late 1930s, Cavallon often employed a loose grid structure, which led critics to suggest an interest in Mondrian; yet Cavallon was more concerned with light and evocations of landscape than with the strict formal structure of the Dutch master.
As a Hofmann student, Cavallon was friendly with the organizers of the American Abstract Artists, and he exhibited in the group's annual exhibitions from 1937 until 1957. In 1946, Cavallon joined Charles Egan's gallery and had his first one-man show in eleven years. Although sales were few, Cavallon found himself in a supportive environment and enjoyed arguing art with Willem de Kooning, Jack Tworkov, Franz Kline, Philip Guston, and the other artists who showed there. He became a charter member of the Club—the group of Abstract Expressionists who habituated the Cedar Bar—and participated in the group's Ninth Street Show in 1949. After Egan closed his space, Cavallon exhibited at Stable Gallery, and then at Kootz Gallery in New York. He taught briefly at the University of North Carolina and served as visiting critic in painting at Yale University in 1964.
1. For further information about Cavallon, see Giorgio Cavallon, Paintings 1937–1977(Purchase, N.Y.: Neuberger Museum, State University of New York at Purchase, 1977).
Virginia M. Mecklenburg The Patricia and Phillip Frost Collection: American Abstraction 1930–1945 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press for the National Museum of American Art, 1989)
Country Scene
pencil and watercolor on paper
Untitled, from the portfolio American Abstract Artists