text:
All it took was a little 'Patience' - Robbie and Gary reunite to film duet video
Over 15 years have gone by since they last recorded together. But Take That's Gary Barlow and Robbie Williams were reunited this week to film the music video for their brand new duet, Shame.
Lady GaGa and Lily wig out at Brits while Robbie Williams shares gong joy with Ayda
Flamboyant performer Lady GaGa ruled the Brits on Tuesday night, picking up a hat trick of gongs.
The 23-year-old star walked off with best International Female, Best International Album and Best International...
Music video for Simon Cowell's star-studded Haiti charity single debuts
The music video for Simon Cowell's star-studded charity single in aid of Haiti earthquake victims has gone on release.
Twenty-one stars, including Cheryl Cole, Robbie Williams, James Blunt and...
Is this what they mean by hair of the dog? Robbie Williams uses pooches as wigs
Most men would be upset at the suggestion they were going grey. But not cheeky singer Robbie Williams.
The pop star has poked fun at stories which appeared last week about his changing hair colour by...
HELLO! exclusive: Robbie Williams and Ayda's romantic wedding plans
He's yet to confirm any pending nuptials, but with Robbie Williams' girlfriend Ayda Field happily flashing a sparkler on her wedding finger last week, it seems the previously steadfast singleton is ready...


text: Make a Donation Square One is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, which makes your contribution to support our programming for children and families tax deductible. Your gift will have an immediate impact on our ability to continue providing quality early education and parenting support to our community's most vulnerable children, including victims of abuse, neglect and long-term homelessness. Thank you for making our work possible. Thank you for making a difference. Thank you for making Square One your charity of choice. Please follow these instructions when making a donation:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
LG ships 100 million handsets in 2008
The first numbers for 2008 are out and it appears that LG had a very good year. According to the South Korean newspaper JoongAng Daily, LG sold 100 million handsets last year, boosting it to third place worldwide and barely bumping Motorola to fourth place.
Nokia, of course, was the top dog. Preliminary numbers show that the Finnish giant sold 470 million handsets in 2008, putting it far ahead of Samsung, which claimed the number two spot with 200 million handset sold. Nokia shows no sign of losing its No. 1 status, even though Samsung pumps phones out nonstop.
Motorola, … Read more
U.S. Cellular drinks up LG Wine
U.S. Cellular has just announced the LG Wine, a simple mid-tier handset with features like a 1.3-megapixel camera, Bluetooth, a one-touch speakerphone, and voice command. Appropriately, it's available in red and white versions.
You can get it for $179.95 without a contract or $29.95 after a two-year agreement and a mail-in rebate of $50.
3D is coming to a living room near you
Three-dimensional TV is coming to a living room near you. But will the technology spur a consumer spending spree like digital and high-definition TV did before it? Or will 3D end up being the next big flop?
One thing is clear, TV manufacturers need something new to get people buying TVs. Over the last couple of years, TV manufacturers have experienced a sales boom as consumers upgrade to digital TVs in anticipation of the government's mandated switch to digital TV broadcasts in February 2009. Eager shoppers have also been upgrading to high-definition TVs as movie studios, cable and satellite … Read more
LG VX8360 now available from Verizon
We took a look at the LG VX8360 at CES 2009, but now we've spotted it at Verizon's online store.
The LG VX8360, if you recall, is a mid-tier flip phone with EV-DO, a 1.3-megapixel camera, external music player controls, stereo Bluetooth, a microSD card slot, and of course access to Verizon's V Cast services. And for $50 with a two-year contract, the VX8360 certainly fits the bill as an affordable 3G handset.
P.S. We just tried to click on the link to see if we could buy the phone, and it seems it's … Read more
LG Secret not so secret after all
It looks like the LG CF750 Secret may be coming over to AT&T, according to this listing on LG's U.S. site. Hopefully it'll have many of the features found on its Asian/European counterpart, like the 5-megapixel camera, 3G, a touch-sensitive display, support for shooting video at 120fps into DivX format, Bluetooth, a music player, and also access to Google products like GMail and Google Maps.
No word on pricing or availability of course, but if it's already showing up on LG's site, we could see it soon.
(Via Engadget Mobile)
Apple signs deal with LG for display supply
Apple has signed a five-year deal with LG Electronics to secure a supply of LCD displays.
Reuters reports that LG has received $500 million as a down payment on the deal, which LG disclosed in a filing to the Korea Exchange. The two companies are not exactly strangers; one analyst in South Korea estimated that LG already provides around 70 percent of Apple's flat-panel displays.
The deal appears to be somewhat similar to long-term supply deals that Apple has cut with flash-memory companies like Samsung, Micron, and Toshiba. Apple agreed to pay $1.25 billion in 2005 to five … Read more
GM to build Chevy Volt batteries
General Motors has decided to manufacture its own battery packs for its new electric vehicle, the Chevy Volt.
"GM is getting back in the battery business," CEO Rick Wagoner announced Monday.
The company also announced Monday that it has chosen LG Chem to provide the lithium-ion cells for the battery packs GM plans to manufacture.
GM announced in September that it had chosen a battery supplier, but would not reveal which company that was. LG Chem and A123Systems have long been involved in the development of the lithium-ion cells for the Volt's E-Flex electric drive train. While … Read more
CES 2009: Everything connected and mobile
LAS VEGAS--The undeniable winner coming out of CES 2009 is Palm. The smartphone maker took a giant step toward a much-needed comeback by announcing the Pre and accompanying mobile operating system, WebOS.
The Pre announcement garnered a ton of pre-show buzz, and dominated news coverage on the opening day of the event. But the Pre wasn't the only thing noteworthy about this year's gadget extravaganza here. High-definition televisions got Internet access and lost their wires, Netbooks and notebooks became harder to tell apart, and wireless products came in some surprising packages.
As the show comes to a close Saturday, here's a look back at some of the most important themes that emerged.
High-definition television makers are getting real CES is usually a competition among TV makers to see who can make the largest screen or thinnest set. While there was still an element of that here, the top-tier television manufacturers also competed another way: to find who could make the new HDTV most accessible to the mainstream consumer in a down economy.
Toshiba's Scott Ramirez put it best: Sure we could make a 150-inch TV. "But nobody buys those."… Read more
LG's line of phones you can't get
We didn't see too many new U.S. devices from LG this year at CES 2009, but we did get a good look at some of the company's handsets that are only available in Europe or Asia. Of course, the LG Watch Phone stole the show earlier in the week, and that's slated for a Europe-only release date. We also got a hands-on with the LG Renoir, the 8-megapixel wonder with camera features we only wish we could have in our standalone point-and-shoots. And finally, we take a brief look at the LG Prada II and its … Read more


text:
Out of Stock
Item # CST2646
2014 This model is no longer in stock.
Don't worry though, we have a lot more Men's Casual Cycling Tops in stock than that.
Castelli Race Day T-Shirt $0.00
Give your Lycra a break.
While today's jerseys fit and feel much better than what was available even just a few years ago, we still don't really want to have them on while we're milling around before a race. Castelli knows this too, which is why it made the new Race Day T-Shirt for all your pre- and post-bike activities.
Made from a 60/40 cotton and polyester blend, the Race Day T-Shirt features a "slim" fit, contrasting neck tape, and screen-printed logos front and rear. And while the fit is described as slim, Castelli is quick to note that this is by no means an ultra-tight "euro" cut. For reference, someone who is six feet tall and weighs 175lbs will fit a Large shirt very well.
The Castelli Race Day T-Shirt is available in sizes Small to XXX-Large and in the colors Black and White.


text:
*Prescription lenses can be added by your local optician.
Spec | Details |
Base Curve | 8 |
Frame Color | Black |
Lens Color | Smoke-Air Blue Polarized |
Features | ANSI, Polarized, Rx-Compatible |
Material | Plastic |
Protection Level (ANSI) | Z87.1+ |
Shape | Rectangle |
Style Name | Wrath |
UV Protection | 100% |
At Gargoyles, we want to Do the Right Thing ™ by our customers. We want you to continue wearing and loving our brand, so we created a special warranty for our loyal customers. We make it easy for you to resolve any issues with damaged or unusable sunglasses, whether it's due to manufacturer's defect or "user error."
* Required Fields


text:
Denver. Urban renewal. Model city program Mayor Currigan welcomes probe of model city program. Post J1 30, 1968 p.2 Visitying government officials hear resident committee's reports. Post S 20, 1968 13.2 *i1l-on grant hoped for 1st year Denver model cities grant. Post C 29, 1^`? p.3 CALM proposal for unarmed patrol withdrawn from Denver's Model City program. RMN N 8, 1968 p.33 Post N 8, 1968 p.2 Director for program sought. RAN F 12, 1969 P.8
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.


text:
Monday, October 10, 2011
Lacquered jewelry bowls
I love collecting little keepsakes on my vanity, a silver tray for necklaces and perfumes, red leather boxes and a few candles to keep everything scented nicely, but I am always in the mood to switch things up a bit as well. The look of bowls holding an assortment of jeweled, sparkly things is one of my favorite home decor touches. The slightly mismatched feel has a wonderfully eclectic quality and instead of buying a pre-made ceramic holder, I decided to craft a few myself. Using a few metallic and vibrant paints, tape, and a finishing gloss, I created the perfect jewelry holders with a touch of playful shimmer and a good dose of color.
1. Pick thin ceramic bowls, not too deep, and in a small to medium size. Wash and dry to remove any dust.
2.Select a few colors that look good together (I went with a sunny glitter, metallic gold paint, and turquoise to match)
3. Tape off the section that you want to paint with painter's tape. This is where it's fun to get creative, paint the entire bowl, a small circle, or a little strip to make a dip effect.
4. Using long strokes to get a brushed look, paint 3 coats (4 for the glitter), drying with a hairdryer in between each layer. Wipe the lip of the bowl with a paper towel between each coat.
5. Top with a clear gloss coat (only a thing layer so it doesn't drip) and let dry over night. Remove tape once fully dry.
6. Arrange and enjoy your lacquered glittery bowls.
35 comments:
This is a great idea and such a neat way to store jewelery!!
Shabby Apple Giveaway
Thank you for your comments! I love hearing your thoughts. Make sure to check back for responses to your questions too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Please enter your travel dates.
Standard Room - European Plan
Belize City bed & breakfast with a restaurant
Situated in Belize City, this bed & breakfast is close to Tourism Village, Baron Bliss Lighthouse, and Museum of Belize.
Property Features
In addition to a restaurant, Coningsby Inn features a bar/lounge. Other amenities include complimentary wireless Internet access and a complimentary grocery shopping service.
Room Amenities
Televisions come with cable channels. Guestrooms also feature complimentary wireless Internet access, air conditioning, and private bathrooms.
Information missing or incorrect? Tell us!Hotel Amenities
- General
The bed & breakfast offers a restaurant. A bar/lounge is on site where guests can unwind with a drink. Public areas are equipped with complimentary high-speed wireless Internet access. This Belize City bed & breakfast also offers laundry facilities and a complimentary grocery shopping service.
- Complimentary grocery shopping service
- Bar/lounge
- Business services
- Free Wi-Fi
- 24-hour front desk
- Total number of rooms - 10
- Number of floors - 2
- Breakfast available (surcharge)
- Laundry facilities
- Restaurant
- Internet
Available in all rooms: Free Wi-Fi
Available in some public areas: Free Wi-Fi
- Room Amenities
- Free Wi-Fi
- Television
- Phone
- Ceiling fan
- Air conditioning
- Private bathroom
- Cable TV service
- Individually decorated
- Dining
Coningsby Inn has a restaurant serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
- Recreation
The recreational activities listed below are available either on site or nearby; fees may apply.
- Swimming nearby
- Snorkeling nearby
- Boating nearby
- Sailing nearby
- Scuba diving nearby
- Hiking/biking trails nearby
- Fishing nearby
Policies & Fees
- Check-in
Check-in time starts at 3 PM
- Check-out
Check-out time is 11 AM
- Pets
Pets not allowed
- General
Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on hotel policy.
Government-issued photo identification and a credit card or cash deposit are required at check-in for incidental charges.
Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges. Special requests cannot be guaranteed.


text:
Josh Duhamel is no fan of Merril Hoge and his Tim Tebow bashing
Taking sides on Tim Tebow has turned into the great cottage industry of the sports media. While some have made quite a career out of blindly and ignorantly staking what little integrity was left of their own career driving the Tebow bandwagon (see: Bayless, Skip), others have attempted to take the opposite flank in hopes of making a similar name for themselves.
ESPN NFL analyst Merril Hoge has been the loudest and most vociferous Tebow basher in Bristol over the last couple years, but he thankfully hasn't been rewarded with the international infamy of his ESPN counterpart, Skip Bayless. (Evidently there's only room for one ESPNer to make a career out of TebowMania.)
Hoge has criticized Tebow for everything from his running and passing to which side of the bed he gets out of in the morning. Most recently Hoge took his attacks down to a personal level, because criticizing Tebow's non-existent play on the field just wasn't getting the job done anymore. Hoge called Tebow as "phony as a three dollar bill" this week because of WildcatGate, which created another controversy filled Tebow news cycle for ESPN, or as the folks in Bristol call it - nirvana. Whether or not Tebow quit on the Jets or the Jets quit on Tebow, the media can't quit on either.
Hoge's "analysis" when it comes to Tebow is nothing short of the promo a professional wrestling villain cuts to try to get the home crowd to boo him. He's *this close* to calling Tebow supporters fat, out of shape, inner city sweat hogs.
Sticking up for Tim Tebow isn't the most popular position to take at the moment. However, one brave man has finally seen enough and decided to stand up to Merril Hoge and his repeated bashing of the Jets third string quarterback. That man is...
Hollywood actor Josh Duhamel?
Hollywood actor Josh Duhamel.
no comments


text:
Watermen ask for easing of striped bass quota
January 5, 2012 - 03:08 pm
EASTON, Md. (AP) - Watermen and lawmakers on the Eastern Shore are asking state natural resources officials to ease tougher striped bass harvest regulations.
The harvest quota was cut 5 percent after illegal nets were found last year with tons of striped bass.
The president of the Chesapeake Bay Commercial Fisherman's Association and state lawmakers sent the letter last month to Natural Resources Secretary John Griffin asking him to restore the full catch quota.
Tom O'Connell, the director of the DNR fisheries service, told The Star Democrat of Easton that the new quota will remain in place this year, but could change in the future based on industry behavior.
Short URL:
RecommendedRecent Facebook Activity
Only On 7
Leon Harris and Alison Starling weeknights on ABC7
For all the breaking stories happening in your neighborhood and developing stories happening around the world, join Leon Harris and Alison Starling weeknights on ABC7 News at 5 and 11.
TBD Blogs What you need to read
@TBD Arts
Keep it close to home this weekend with a lineup of local bands
@TBD On Foot
Stay out of bike lanes, or else
Best of TBD In case you missed it
Images of 2011
These are TBD's best photos of the year.


text:
Standard maintenance opportunity windows are an important part of proactively maintaining and enhancing the IT environment at Clemson University. The standard maintenance periods represent a regular "window" of time in which maintenance can be performed.
These "windows" will most likely not be utilized every day or every week, but only as needed. All maintenance work performed within these timeframes will be scheduled and communicated to campus customers via the CCIT Change Management program.
Maintenance that requires down time with campus-wide impacts will also be communicated to the campus community in advance through our CCIT Communications office.
- Daily, 3AM to 7AM
- Every Friday, 10PM to Saturday 7AM
- CUBS: Every Wednesday, 8PM to 4AM
- Mainframe and Student Systems: Every Saturday, 6PM to 10AM
- DHHS Non-Mainframe QA and Test servers: Second Saturdays of each month, 9am to 1pm
- DHHS Non-Mainframe Production servers: Third Saturdays of each month, 9am to 1pm


text:
Co Q 10
100 Softgels Item #: VS-2389 / 1624824- Value Price: $29.99
- Earn 30 Healthy Awards points when you buy this item. What's this?
the Vitamin Shoppe Co Q 10 (150 MG) 100 Softgels
Product Label
An antioxidant to promote heart health and energy.
As a dietary supplement, take one (1) softgel daily, preferably with meals.
Contains Soy. Do not use if are pregnant or nursing. Please consult your physician prior to use if you have any medical condition or are taking any medications. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.
Does Not Contain:
Added Yeast, Corn, Wheat, Salt, Dairy, Citrus, Fish, Preservatives, Artificial Colors or Flavors.
Co Q 10 Supplement Facts
Other Ingredients:
Soybean oil, gelatin, glycerin, purified water, yellow beeswax, lecithin, annatto extract, titanium dioxide.
Co Q 10 Reviews
Reviewed by 2 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1-2
- Convenience
- price
- Quality
- Satisfaction
- value
Best Uses
Comments about Vitamin Shoppe Coq 10 (150 MG) - 100 Softgels:
This CoQ10 comes in a gelcap, not in powdered form, so I don't have to worry about making sure that I take it with fatty food or fish oil so that it gets absorbed. As far as I can tell the jury is still out on the ubiquinone/ubiquitol question (not enough scientific studies yet?), so I switch off between this (ubiquinone) and the more expensive ubiquitol (sold by VS as MD Select CoQ10). But both are softgels, easy to swallow and more absorbable than tablets or capsules of powder, which is what matters most to me in buying CoQ10.
- Quality
Best Uses
Comments about Vitamin Shoppe Coq 10 (150 MG) - 100 Softgels:
My orthopedist STRONGLY recommended taking CoQ10 on a daily basis to assist with post-exercise pain. Apparently it aids muscle recovery.
Displaying reviews 1-2


text:
City Commons Plaza
City Commons Plaza is the entrance court to Orlando City Hall. The 50,000 square foot plaza wraps around the building becoming an amphitheater for civic functions and formal events. A Natural Florida theme runs throughout the park with native trees and shrubs and a fountain that mimics a rain and lightning storm. Leashed pets are allowed at all City parks, but not in playgrounds or athletic fields. Please clean up after your pet.


text:
Study says, 'Humans and chimpanzees show similar preferences regarding reward division, suggesting a long evolutionary history to the human sense of fairness.' Yes. true. But chimpanzees still continue protesting against unfairness, most humans stopped doing it. They have learned to accept the inequalities between poor and rich, women and men.
Jan 16 2013
Even monkeys protest against inequalities. What about humans?
7 comments
Just yesterday, Dr. de Waal posted an announcement to his public Facebook page. From the post:
"We have reached quite a milestone today with the publication of our study on primate fairness….
"Most of you know our monkey study showing the vigorous protest by the monkey who gets cucumber while another gets grapes. This study is 10 years old, however. Now we have done the impossible by having chimps play the Ultimatum Game. This game is the absolute gold standard for fairness in humans, and has been played all over the world with humans in different cultures. One individual needs to split a money amount with another and if the other accepts the proposed split both will get their share. Humans make fair offers, probably because they are afraid that the other may otherwise reject. In that case they will both end up empty-handed.
"It is not easy to get chimps to make an offer to each other and the other to express acceptance. This is much easier done with linguistic creatures. Previous attempts used such complex apparatuses that the chimps were quite confused, even accepting zero offers, which no sane primate, human or nonhuman, should ever do.
"Darby Proctor, a student of Sarah Brosnan and now a postdoc with us, worked for years diligently on getting chimps to understand a much simpler procedure. Once they did, she could play the Ultimatum game with them. The choices the chimps made were entirely their own, they were not trained or rewarded by us for what they chose. It was up to them. We tested young children in exactly the same way. The children and chimps reacted in the same way, making strikingly fair offers."
Here's one write-up of the new study:
StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!
Not at all surprised by this although good to have it confirmed.
Pretty sure I recall from somewhere a study showing that dogs have a sense of fairness too.
I'd try to be fair and feed dogs equally anyway but do so even more with that in mind.
I think there is a certain instinct for justice, fairness and equal compassionate treatment – among many animals and homo sapiens is no exception to this though some people still try to warp or wish away this basic part of our nature through various means and ideologies.
StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!
@1. Stacy :
"It is not easy to get chimps to make an offer to each other and the other to express acceptance. This is much easier done with linguistic creatures.
Chimps and great apes aren't linguistic eh? See :
I'm not so sure about that!
pulin golder
That the study of 10 years and make out the equality in the monkey`s society. I d`nt know about the reality. But they are not ready to share equaly in thier sexual life.
A big difference with humans is, although we have the same sense of fairness, we are also much more socially advanced so it is possible to convince us that we can have a much bigger reward if we delay our gratification and get our share later.
As in after we're dead.
Meanwhile, god tests this virtue in us by giving everything in this life to bankers and priests and imams and other utterly useless parasites.
One thing though, we humans are quite good at rationalizing away any inequality, talking straight what is crooked.


text:
< Return To Hearing
Alan UntereinerSeptember 12, 2007
ALAN E. UNTEREINER "Preserving The Vital Role Of Preemption In ON BEHALF OF BEFORE ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
Good morning Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Specter, and other distinguished members of the Committee. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today about a subject that is of substantial professional interest to me. I am testifying today on behalf of the United States Chamber of Commerce as well as the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform. The views stated today are my own, based on my experience over the past 19 years of private practice during which I have represented business defendants, trade associations, and other clients in a wide variety of preemption cases. The preemption doctrine is critically important to the business community and to the health of our national economy. In my experience, the positive impact of federal preemption very often gets lost in the sometimes heated debates over whether a particular court decision or agency action was correct. In recent years, these controversies have been particularly acute in the area of preemption of state requirements that are imposed by tort law or in product liability litigation. Although I will address those disputes later in my testimony, I think it is critically important for this Committee to keep in mind that the preemption doctrine has a far broader reach than this relatively narrow category of disputes - and that changes made to the preemption doctrine generally could have a far-reaching effect on the operations of the federal government. I would like to begin today by reviewing the significant benefits that can occur when Congress - or an administrative agency acting pursuant to delegated authority - elects to regulate preemptively rather than merely concurrently with state and local governments. The Benefits Of Preemption: We live in a large and sprawling country that is rich in many things - including government. In addition to the 50 state governments, each with its own legislature, executive branch and administrative agencies, and courts, by last count there were more than 87,500 local governmental units in the United States, including more than 3,000 counties, more than 19,000 municipalities, and more than 16,000 towns or townships. See U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 262 (2004). This multiplicity of government actors below the federal level ensures that businesses with national operations will be subject to complicated, overlapping, and sometimes even conflicting legal regimes. These overlapping regulations have the potential to impose undue burdens on interstate commerce. That is why, as the Supreme Court has explained, it is "[a] fundamental principle of the Constitution ... that Congress has the power to preempt state law." Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000). When Congress elects to legislate preemptively by prescribing a single set of uniform rules for the entire country, it streamlines the legal system, reduces the regulatory burdens on business, and helps to create a unified national marketplace for goods and services. It also reduces the burdens to new entry by small businesses and lowers the cost of doing business (which in turn can result in reduced costs of goods and services to consumers). In many cases, Congress's adoption of a preemptive scheme also ensures that the legal rules governing complex areas of the economy or products are formulated by expert regulators with a broad national perspective and needed scientific or technical expertise rather than by decision makers - such as municipal officials, elected state judges, and lay juries - who have a far more parochial perspective and limited set of information. For businesses, having a single, uniform federal rule is usually far preferable to dealing with a welter of federal, state, and local requirements. In light of these obvious benefits, it is not surprising that Congress has elected to pass scores of statutes that contain preemption clauses. According to one survey, between 1789 and 1992 Congress enacted "approximately 439 significant preemption statutes" - "more than 53 percent" of which were enacted between 1969 and 1992. U.S. ADVISORY COMM'N ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, FEDERAL STATUTORY PREEMPTION OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY: HISTORY, INVENTORY, ISSUES, at iii (1992).1 Federal preemption is common in the areas of copyright, telecommunications, banking, and labor law. Not surprisingly given Congress's responsibility for regulating interstate commerce, a large number of these express preemption provisions are aimed at freeing up nationally distributed products of one kind or another - including mobile products such as automobiles that regularly cross jurisdictional borders - from the burdens imposed by different or additional state regulations concerning product labeling or design. Separate federal statutes accomplish this for recreational boats, automobiles, pesticides, cigarettes, medical devices, flammable fabrics, hazardous substances, and many other consumer products. These uses of the preemption doctrine reduce the burdens on interstate commerce and help to create unified national markets - and thus serve a central purpose underlying the Commerce Clause.
So far I have been talking mostly about what is usually called "express preemption" - the choice expressly made by Congress (or by an administrative agency delegated authority by Congress) to regulate preemptively instead of merely concurrently. But the preemption doctrine has another, vitally important function: it protects the authority of the federal government - and the full efficacy of federal law in all its various forms - against incursions and interference by state and local governments. The Framers of our Constitution understood the vital importance of ensuring the supremacy of federal law in the face of conflicting or contrary mandates imposed by state governments. That is why they included the Supremacy Clause, which provides that "the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. The Supremacy Clause is the fountainhead of the doctrine of implied preemption. The Supreme Court has identified several types of implied preemption. Implied field preemption occurs where federal regulation is "so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it." Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). Implied conflict preemption involves conflicts between state and federal law and takes a number of forms. Conflict preemption occurs where "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963), or state and federal law otherwise conflict, or state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). The first of these three variants of conflict preemption is sometimes referred to as "impossibility" preemption; the last, "obstacle" preemption. Thus, under the Supremacy Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court, any state or municipal law that conflicts with - or frustrates the purposes of - federal law is automatically nullified. And the Court has made clear that "[t]he phrase 'Laws of the United States'" in the Supremacy Clause "encompasses both federal statutes themselves and federal regulations that are properly adopted in accordance with statutory authorization." City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57 (1988). Thus, with every new statute passed by Congress, with every new regulation issued by a federal administrative agency, state and local governments are precluded, "by direct operation of the Supremacy Clause" (Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Int'l Union Local 54,468 U.S. 491, 501 (1984)), from taking legislative, judicial or executive action that conflicts with, or frustrates the purpose of, the federal enactment. In the last century (and particularly since the New Deal), there has been a vast expansion of federal law in all forms - especially statutes and regulations. By virtue of the Supremacy Clause, the inevitable consequence of that expansion is to restrict the residual authority and police power of state and local governments to take actions that conflict with federal law. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 159 (1992) ("As the Federal Government's willingness to exercise power within the confines of the Constitution has grown, the authority of the States has correspondingly diminished to the extent that federal and state policies have conflicted."). This dynamic helps to explain why preemption is so common today and why preemption cases are a staple of the Supreme Court's docket. It also shows why critics of the preemption doctrine are wrong in suggesting that preemption is extraordinary, unusual, suspect, or contrary to principles of federalism embodied in the Constitution. To the contrary, preemption is an ordinary, ubiquitous and highly beneficial feature of our scheme of government. And it is not only consistent with but compelled by the Supremacy Clause. The Preemption Doctrine Should Not Be Weakened By Congress Let me turn now to some of the criticisms of the preemption doctrine and proposals for weakening it that have been made by critics. I plan to first discuss express preemption, then implied preemption, then finally preemption by administrative agencies. Most of the proposals for change would apply only prospectively, i.e., to statutes enacted and regulations promulgated in the future. Accordingly, I will generally leave to one side the set of problems that would arise if new limits on the preemption doctrine were applied retroactively to statutes enacted or regulations promulgated under entirely different ground rules. I. Express Preemption As previously explained, Congress has enacted a wide array of statutes that include provisions expressly stating that some defined area of state and local law is preempted. In such instances of "express preemption," the critical question is always what Congress intended - and courts deciding issues of express preemption apply all the usual tools of statutory construction by examining the text, structure, and legislative history of Congress's enactments. Rules Of Construction Relating To Express Preemption Clauses Although in the 1920s the Supreme Court briefly applied a presumption in favor of preemption to congressional statutes, see Stephen Gardbaum, The Nature of Preemption, 79 CORNELL L. REV. 767, 801-08 (1994), it soon thereafter shifted gears and made clear that at least where Congress has "legislated ... in [a] field which the States have traditionally occupied," courts must "start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218,230 (1947). In Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), the Supreme Court made clear that this "assumption" (which in other cases has been called the "presumption against preemption") did not merely disappear once Congress made its preemptive intent unmistakably clear by including an express preemption provision in a statute. Rather, it continued as a rule of construction requiring courts to interpret express preemption clauses narrowly in seeking to ascertain Congress's intent. Two Justices dissented from this conclusion. See 505 U.S. at 544 (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) ("Under the Supremacy Clause, ... our job is to interpret Congress's decrees of pre-emption neither narrowly nor broadly, but in accordance with their apparent meaning."). The presumption against preemption has been criticized by several prominent scholars, including Professor Viet Dinh, on the ground that it is inconsistent with the text of the Supremacy Clause. It has also been criticized by Justices Scalia and Thomas on the ground that it artificially skews the inquiry into Congress's intent. Although these criticisms are valid, the Supreme Court has shown no inclination to abandon the presumption, and indeed has reaffirmed it, even though in a number of recent cases business groups - including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - have asked it do so. Thus, the presumption against preemption remains a part of preemption law. Nevertheless, some have proposed that Congress codify the presumption against preemption by including it in a federal statute. In the view of these critics, Congress would do well to tie its own hands prospectively by mandating that no future federal statute will be understood to expressly preempt state or local law unless the statute states explicitly that such preemption is intended. It has also been proposed that Congress codify the rule of narrow construction of express preemption provisions set forth in Cipollone by stating that "[a]ny ambiguity" in any express preemption clause must be resolved against preemption. As an initial matter, it is difficult to see why Congress would want to codify such strictures on its own authority to exercise its legislative powers. If Congress's intent is the touchstone of preemption analysis, then why would Congress wish to put a distorting thumb on the scale of the inquiry into that intent? On the other hand, to the extent that these provisions merely restate the "presumption against preemption" that is already an accepted part of preemption law, they seem unnecessary. Finally, the proposal should be rejected because the criticisms leveled against the "presumption against preemption" by scholars and by Justice Scalia are valid. Beyond these shortcomings, the proposal appears to rest on the assumption that Congress (or the courts) is insufficiently sensitive to federalism concerns when Congress expressly deploys its well-established power to regulate preemptively (or courts resolve disputes about the meaning of express preemption clauses included in federal statutes). As I will next explain, this assumption is mistaken. Congress's Sensitivity To Federalism Concerns Is Already Reflected Congress often includes in preemptive federal statutes special safeguards - both substantive and procedural - that protect and preserve the authority of state and local governments to regulate and to meet their own operational needs. The existence of these provisions - which are so often overlooked by critics of preemption - confirms that the political safeguards of federalism are in very good working order and there is no need to codify the presumption against preemption. Six examples of Congress's accommodation of state and local governments' interests in other preemption settings are illustrative. First, Congress often elects only to preempt state and local laws that relate to a particular, limited subject matter. For example, the preemption provision in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), 7 U.S.C. § 136v, is limited to state and local "requirements for labeling or packaging." 7 U.S.C. § I36v(b). State requirements unrelated to "labeling or packaging" are left intact by Congress's careful limitation on FIFRA's preemption clause. Second, Congress often elects only to preempt state and local laws that are different from federal law, thus leaving intact state and local laws that are identical or substantially similar to federal mandates. See, e.g., Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2075(a) (preempting state safety standards "unless such requirements are identical to the requirements of the Federal standard"); Medical Device Amendments, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a). Under these schemes, state and local governments retain the authority to enforce requirements that parallel those imposed by the federal government. Third, Congress frequently places an exclusion within express preemption clauses for goods or products purchased by states or local governments for their own use. Examples include the preemption provisions of the Flammable Fabrics Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1203(b), the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1261 note, and the Poison Prevention Packaging Act, U.S.C. § 1476(b). These exclusions preserve the authority and autonomy of state and local governments to make procurement and spending decisions. Fourth, Congress sometimes includes in a preemption scheme an exception for state or local requirements that are needed to address special or unique local conditions. The Federal Railroad Safety Act, for example, excludes certain "additional or more stringent" measures taken by a state "related to railroad safety or security" where the state's regulation, among other things, "is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard." 49 U.S.C. § 20106. See also 46 U.S.C. § 4306 (Boat Safety Act) (excluding certain state or local regulations concerning "uniquely hazardous conditions or circumstances within the State"). Fifth, Congress often authorizes the granting of exemptions to state and local governments under an express preemption scheme. Although these provisions vary somewhat in form, they typically allow the administrative agency to grant exemptions if a state or local standard: (1) provides a higher degree of protection than applicable federal standards; (2) does not unduly burden interstate commerce; and (3) does not cause the product to be in violation of any federal requirements. See, e.g., Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2617(b); Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1261 note. Sixth, Congress has sometimes specifically created a role for the states in setting the preemptive federal standards. The Federal Boat Safety Act, for example, provides for state input into the Coast Guard's process of formulating uniform federal design standards for recreational boats. The Coast Guard is required to "consult with" the National Boating Safety Advisory Council ("NBSAC"), 46 U.S.C. § 4302(c)(4), a group of experts and other persons interested in boat safety. One-third of the 21 members of the NBSAC must be state officials responsible for state boat safety programs. See id. § 13110(b)( 1). As these examples show, Congress is hardly inattentive to federalism issues in crafting preemptive legislation. The availability of these and other measures to accommodate the interests of state and local governments further demonstrates that the additional, across-the-board measures being proposed by some critics of preemption law are unwarranted. There Is No Need To Further Restrict The Ability Of Equally unfounded is the suggestion of some critics that more stringent rules are needed to restrict the ability of courts to conclude, in express preemption cases, that Congress intended to preempt state or local laws. The state courts and lower federal courts are already bound, under the Supreme Court's cases, to apply a "presumption against preemption" in preemption cases involving areas of traditional state authority or the construction of express preemption clauses. The Supreme Court itself is also bound to follow that precedent. Most of the criticism of the doctrine of express preemption is traceable to disagreements about the outcomes in a line of decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in cases involving the preemption of state tort requirements. Those decisions include not only Cipollone, which involved the Cigarette Labeling Act, but also Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), which involved the Medical Device Amendments, and more recent cases such as Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (2002), and Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), involving other statutes containing express preemption provisions. The point I would make about those decisions is that they turn on very specific differences in the wording of the preemption clauses at issue, the structure of the preemption schemes (including the presence of savings and other provisions that shed light on the meaning of the preemption clause), and the relevant legislative history. It is time that some of these decisions are complex and confusing. But that is largely a function of the complexity of the underlying statutes and the Supreme Court's statute-by-statute approach to these issues, which is entirely appropriate for an exercise in determining Congress's preemptive intent underlying a particular statute. Moreover, these decisions hardly show that the Supreme Court is too quick to find express preemption. In Cipollone, there were actually two preemption provisions at issue - one contained in the 1965 Act and another in the 1969 Act. Notably, the Court rejected the express preemption argument with respect to the 1965 Act. It accepted the preemption defense concerning the 1969 Act for certain claims, but rejected it for others. Beyond that, as explained above, Cipollone announced a new rule of narrow construction for express preemption clauses. Similarly, the Court in Medtronic held that all of the tort claims at issue in that case were not expressly preempted by Medical Device Act. And in Sprietsma, the Court also rejected the manufacturer's arguments for express preemption. Why then are these cases so controversial? The only reason, I would suggest, is because they recognized that Congress's specification that state-law "requirements" in an express preemption clause can include requirements imposed under state tort law. Thus, Justice Stevens' plurality opinion in Cipollone stated that a preemption clause nullifying certain "requirement[s] or prohibition[s] ... imposed under State law" "sweeps broadly and suggests no distinction between positive enactments and common law" and indeed "easily encompass obligations that take the form of common-law rules." 505 U.S. at 521 (plurality) (emphasis added). Justices Scalia and Thomas agreed with that conclusion. Id. at 548-49. In Medtronic, a majority of the Court endorsed Justice O'Connor's conclusion that the "ordinary meaning" of a provision preempting state "requirements" "clearly pre-empts any state common-law action." 518 U.S. at 511. In agreeing with that conclusion, Justice Breyer pointed out the "anomalous consequences" of "grant[ing] greater power ... to a single state jury than to state officials acting through state administrative and legislative lawmaking." Id. at 504 (Breyer, J., concurring). Justice Breyer also gave as an example of a claim that would be preempted "a state law tort action that premises liability upon the defendant manufacturer's failure to use a 1-inch wire," where "a federal ... regulation requires a 2-inch wire." Ibid. The Court has reached the same conclusion in cases involving other preemption provisions. See Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431,443 (2005) ("the term 'requirements' in [7 U.S.C.] § 136v(b) reaches beyond positive enactments, such as statutes and regulations, to embrace common-law duties"); CSX Tramp. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993). Contrary to the suggestion of some critics, this aspect of the Court's decisions in Cipollone, Medtronic, and other cases is not entirely new but rather builds on older decisions that recognize the same principle or acknowledge the clear regulatory effect of common-law judgments. In San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959), the Court observed that "[state] regulation can be as effectively exerted through an award of damages as through some form of preventive relief. The obligation to pay compensation can be, indeed is designed to be, a potent method of governing conduct and controlling policy." Id. at 247. Similarly, in Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 U.S. 117 (1991), the Court held that the phrase "all other law, including State and municipal law" simply "does not admit of [a] distinction ... between positive enactments and common-law rules of liability." Id. at 128. Indeed, "[a]t least since Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), [the Court] ha[s] recognized the phrase 'state law' to include common law as well as statutes and regulations." Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 522. It is worth pointing out, however, that in other cases involving differently worded preemption clauses the Supreme Court has reached the opposite conclusion: that Congress intended to exclude requirements imposed under state tort or common law. One example is Geier v. American Honda Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), which held that the preemption clause of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which refers to state "safety standards," does not encompass standards imposed under the common law. Id. at 867-68. Another is Sprietsma, which held that the Boat Safety Act's preemption clause does not cover common-law claims. See 537 U.S. 51, 63-64 (2002). Cf. also Bates. 544 U.S. at 445 ("A requirement is a rule of law that must be obeyed; an event, such as a jury verdict, that merely motivates an optional decision is not a requirement. The proper inquiry calls for an examination of the elements of the common-law duty at issue ... "). The differences in outcomes in these cases turn on subtle differences in language used by Congress in the specific statutes at issue. Underlying these disputes about Congress's meaning in specific cases are vigorous disagreements about the regulatory effect of tort law and large-scale products liability litigation today and whether tort law's compensatory function makes it qualitatively different from all other types of legal obligations imposed by states. Business defendants in these cases tend to argue that it is illogical to draw a distinction between the requirements imposed under the common law of torts and requirements imposed by statute because many states have codified their tort law. They also argue that it simply ignores practical realities to suggest that massive common-law liability, for example, for a design defect does not "require" any future action by a product manufacturer. A manufacturer that ignored a multimillion-dollar verdict in a design defect case would risk not only similar verdicts but also punitive damages in the future. In arguing that modem tort litigation has a clear regulatory effect, business defendants also often point to the rise of mass tort litigation and large punitive damages awards. See Hensler, The New Social Policy Torts: Litigation As A Legislative Strategy, Some Preliminary Thoughts On A New Research Project, 51 DEPAUL L. REV. 493,498 (2001) ("What seems to most distinguish the new tort actions from conventional damage class actions is that, in addition to seeking damages and enforcement of current regulations, the plaintiffs seek to change the rules that govern industry-wide business practices."). On the other side of the debate, plaintiffs' lawyers argue that tort requirements are qualitatively different - or not "requirements" at all. They point out that the necessary effect of upholding preemption of a state tort requirement is to deprive injured persons of a right to recover damages - at least on the preempted theory.
The only point I would like to make today about these recurring debates is that I suspect they would not be resolved the same way by every Member of Congress. Reasonable people can and do disagree over these issues. And that is why courts look to the actual language used by Congress in preemptive statutes to discern how Congress has resolved the issue in each particular case. II. Implied Preemption Let me turn next to the doctrine of implied preemption. Some have suggested that implied "conflict" preemption should be eliminated by statute except for situations where there is a "direct" conflict between federal and state law that is incapable of being resolved. Presumably, this would do away with "obstacle" preemption and leave in place only "impossibility" preemption and some subset of ordinary conflict preemption (where the conflict is "direct," whatever that means). Congress's Authority To Restrict Implied Conflict Preemption As an initial matter, there is a serious question, in my view, whether Congress has the power to limit implied preemption in this fashion. As previously explained, the implied preemption doctrine flows directly from, and is based upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of, the Supremacy Clause. The classic formulation of obstacle preemption is often traced back to Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941) (assessing whether state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress"). In Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 (1971), the Supreme Court observed that "[s]ince Hines the Court has frequently adhered to this articulation of the meaning of the Supremacy Clause." Id. at 649-50 (emphasis added; citing multiple cases); accord Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 873-74 (2000). In Perez, the Court further noted that obstacle preemption has roots extending back to Gibbons v. Ogden, where the Court noted that state laws that '''interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution,' are invalid under the Supremacy Clause." 402 U.S. at 649 (quoting 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 211); see also Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 533 (1912) ("[W]hen the question is whether a Federal act overrides a state law, the entire scheme of the statute must, of course, be considered, and that which needs must be implied is of no less force than that which is expressed. If the purpose of the act cannot otherwise be accomplished - if its operation within its chosen field must be frustrated and its provisions refused their natural effect - the state law must yield ....") (emphasis added). Plainly, Congress lacks the authority to rewrite the Supremacy Clause. Obstacle Preemption Protects The Efficacy Putting the issue of authority to one side, I think it would be profoundly unwise to eliminate "obstacle preemption." Why would Congress want to permit state and local governments to subvert Congress's objectives? Beyond that, it is well settled that obstacle preemption can occur not only where the goals of state and federal law are incompatible, but also where state law "interferes with the methods by which the federal statute was designed to reach [its] goal." International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481,494 (1987) (emphasis added). Why would Congress want to permit state and local governments to interfere with or subvert the methods Congress has chosen to carry out its objectives? In Geier v. American Honda Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), the Supreme Court recently refused to impose on a pat1y claiming obstacle preemption a "special burden" when the relevant federal statute includes a "savings" provision. The Court explained: "We see no grounds ... for attempting to distinguish among types of federal-state conflict for purposes of analyzing whether such a conflict warrants pre-emption in a particular case." Id. at 873-74. Obstacle preemption plays a vitally important role in ensuring the supremacy - and full effectiveness of federal law against incursions by the states. Those who advocate eliminating obstacle preemption, moreover, should bear in mind that the doctrine serves to protect the supremacy of all federal laws against encroachments by the states. For example, in Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988), the Court ruled that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 preempted a Wisconsin notice-of-claim statute that required a civil rights plaintiff to provide written notice (of at least 120 days before filing suit) to putative government defendants of the circumstances giving rise to her constitutional claims, the amount of the claim, and her intent to bring suit. In the absence of such notice, the Wisconsin law required the state courts to dismiss the plaintiff's Section 1983 lawsuit. Writing for the Court, Justice Brennan explained that the Wisconsin statute was barred under the doctrine of obstacle preemption because, among other things, it "burdens the exercise of the federal right by forcing civil rights victims who seek redress in state courts to comply with a requirement that is entirely absent from civil rights litigation in the federal courts." Id. at 141; see also id. at 138, 144-56. That conclusion necessarily depended on a robust doctrine of obstacle preemption, because it plainly was not impossible to comply with both the Wisconsin statute and the requirements of Section 1983, and there was no direct conflict between the federal and state laws. Thus, the doctrine of obstacle preemption serves to protect all federal laws - those one likes as well as those one dislikes - against unwarranted subversion by the states. Before taking steps to weaken or eliminate obstacle preemption, Congress should get a very clear picture of all the varied contexts in which it has operated. The Issue Of Judicial Discretion In Obstacle Preemption Cases Why has obstacle preemption come under attack by some commentators and judges? The dissenting Justices in Geier v. American Honda Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), expressed concern about the prospect of "federal judges ... running amok with our potentially boundless ... doctrine of implied conflict pre-emption based on frustration of purposes" and stated that "the Supremacy Clause does not give unelected federal judges carte blanche to use federal law as a means of imposing their own ideas of tort reform on the States." [d. at 894, 907 (dissenting opinion of Stevens, J.) (emphasis added). Thus, the central concern appears to be that the doctrine of obstacle preemption accords judges too much leeway or discretion in determining whether state law frustrates the purposes of federal law in a given case. These concerns are overstated. To be sure, obstacle preemption does require federal and state judges to make subtle judgments in identifying the relevant congressional "purpose" or "purposes" and in deciding when the federal purposes are being frustrated by state law. See Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 373 (2000) ("What is a sufficient obstacle is a matter of judgment, to be informed by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects[.]"). But Congress often declares its purposes explicitly in the statute (or in the accompanying legislative materials). More importantly, such judgment calls are no different from a wide array of decisions made by federal and state courts every day. The law is filled with broad concepts - reasonableness, probable cause, excusable neglect, good cause, ordinary care - that call for the exercise of discretion by judges. Beyond that, issues relating to obstacle preemption also require judges, as a threshold matter, to construe the state and federal laws that are claimed to be in tension. That type of statutory construction, however, is the bread and butter of what judges do and hardly a basis for concern over unbridled judicial discretion. Nor is there anything unusual or suspect about federal or state judges interpreting and applying the Supremacy Clause (as they do in all cases involving implied conflict preemption). The notion that federal judges lack institutional competency to engage in such tasks - or that their decisions should be systematically skewed in one direction because the federal Judiciary is unelected - is incorrect. Finally, the concerns about judicial competence voiced by the critics of obstacle preemption overlook that the Supremacy Clause is a provision that was intended by the Framers to be enforced by the courts. Federal courts are the institutions entrusted by the Constitution with the authority to police incursions by the states on the supremacy of federal laws. III. Administrative Agencies And Preemption There are at least three separate issues raised by the preemption doctrine as applied to administrative agencies. The first is the threshold question of an agency's authority to regulate preemptively. The second is the amount of deference that should be accorded by courts to an agency's interpretation of an express preemption clause. And the third is the amount of deference that should be given, in an implied preemption case, to the agency's judgment concerning the extent to which state law conflicts with or frustrates the purposes of either a federal law the agency administers or the agency's own regulations. I will discuss these in turn below. Agency Power To Regulate Preemptively The first question has a settled answer. In a line of cases, the Supreme Court has made clear that an administrative agency's authority to regulate preemptively is not dependent on an express grant by Congress of the power to preempt state law. Thus, in Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass 'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982), the Court explained: Where Congress has directed an administrator to exercise his discretion, his judgments are subject to judicial review only to determine whether he has exceeded his statutory authority or acted arbitrarily. When the administrator promulgates regulations intended to pre-empt state law, the court's inquiry is similarly limited: "If [h]is choice represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute, we should not disturb it unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned." A pre-emptive regulation's force does not depend on express congressional authorization to displace state law .... de La Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 153-54 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 383 (1961)); accord City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57,63-69 (1988); Hillsborough County, Fla. v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 714-15, 721 (1985); Capital Cities Cable. lnc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 699-705, 708-09 (1984). Recently, in New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its traditional approach, squarely rejecting the argument that the "presumption against preemption" should be applied in deciding whether an agency has the authority to take regulatory action that preempts state law. The "presumption against preemption," the Court explained, has no bearing on issues relating to "the proper scope of ... federal power" (including an agency's power to preempt state law). Id. at 18. The only question is "whether Congress has given [the agency] the power to act as it has," and that question is resolved "without any presumption one way or the other." Ibid. This approach is sensible. Once Congress has delegated rulemaking power to an agency, the agency steps into Congress's shoes as the decision maker - its job becomes implementing the statute in whatever way best accomplishes the statutory aims. See, e.g., Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), NA., 517 U.S. 735,740-41 (1996) ("We accord deference to agencies under Chevron ... because of a presumption that Congress, when it left ambiguity in a statute meant for implementation by an agency, understood that the ambiguity would be resolved, first and foremost, by the agency, and desired the agency (rather than the courts) to possess whatever degree of discretion the ambiguity allows."). Because an agency is left to make policy choices, it need not shy away from preemption; it need adhere only to the presumption that Congress wanted the statute administered effectively. The agency is no more obligated to avoid preemption than is Congress when determining whether federal regulation should be exclusive. Once a court determines that the agency has the power to administer the statute, the focus shifts to whether the agency (not Congress) intended its regulations to preempt state law. For example, in Hillsborough County, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a statement at the time its regulations were promulgated disclaiming an intent to preempt state law. The Court found this disclaimer "dispositive on the question of implicit intent to pre-empt"; so long as the agency acted within the scope of its statutory authority, it (not Congress) had the discretion to decide whether to preempt state law. 471 U.S. at 714-15 (citing Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-45) (emphasis added). Moreover, this Court observed that "the FDA possesses the authority to promulgate regulations pre-empting local legislation that imperils the supply of plasma and can do so with relative ease." Id. at 721 (emphasis added). Despite the settled nature of these principles, some critics of preemption have suggested that the basic ground rules should be fundamentally altered so that administrative agencies would be powerless to issue preemptive regulations unless and until specifically authorized by Congress to do so. This would obviously result in a sea-change in the rules governing regulatory preemption. As explained above, the preemption doctrine has numerous benefits for the national economy. It can result in the reduction or elimination of regulatory burdens on business and on interstate commerce, help to create unified national markets for goods and services, and lower the costs of production and prices. In my view, it would be unwise to deprive agencies of all authority to bring about these benefits for the American public unless and until Congress has specifically authorized preemptive regulation. Finally, the proposed new approach would create an anomaly because, under settled principles of implied preemption, every agency regulation automatically has preemptive effect under the Supremacy Clause with respect to state and local laws that conflict with the terms of the federal regulation. Yet under the change proposed by some, the same agency whose regulations have automatic preemptive effect under the Supremacy Clause would be powerless to expressly preempt non-conflicting state and local law by design through its own regulation. That is anomalous, to say the least. The Deference Owed To Agency Interpretations The important thing to remember about agency interpretations of express preemption clauses is that they can go in either direction, either upholding or defeating the preemptive effect of a statute. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), the Supreme Court gave "substantial weight" to the FDA's narrowing interpretation of the preemption provision of the Medical Device Amendments, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a). Although the statute, among other things, broadly preempts "any requirement" under state law that "relates to the safety or effectiveness" of a medical device and is not identical to the applicable federal requirements, the FDA had issued a regulation (21 C.F.R. § 808.1) interpreting Section 360k(a)'s references to "any requirement" as being limited to requirements that were "specific" in nature (or not of "general applicability"). See 518 U.S. at 498-500. In previous cases, the Supreme Court had rejected the invitations of litigants to read similar limitations into the broad language of other express preemption provisions. In Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992), for example, the Court interpreted a provision of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 ("ADA") that "pre-empts the States from 'enact[ing] or enforc(ing) any law, rule, regulation, standard or other provision ... relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier.'" Id. at 383 (quoting 49 U.S.C. App. § 1305(a)(1)). The Court categorically rejected the argument that "only state laws specifically addressed to the airline industry are preempted, whereas the ADA imposes no constraints on laws of general applicability." Id. at 386 (emphasis added). Such an interpretation, the Supreme Court explained, would create "an utterly irrational loophole." Ibid. (emphasis added); accord Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1987) (ERISA preemption is not limited to state measures targeting ERISA plans but also includes more general common-law tort and contract causes of action); San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244 & n.3 (1959) ("Nor has it mattered [in cases involving NLRA preemption] whether the States have acted through laws of broad general application rather than laws specifically directed towards the governance of industrial relations.").
This holding was not free of controversy. In dissent, Justice O'Connor pointed out that the majority did "not admit to deferring to these regulations" under Chevron. 518 U.S. at 512 (O'Connor, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and by Scalia and Thomas, J1., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice O'Connor's opinion also noted that "[i]t is not certain that an agency regulation determining the pre-emptive effect of any federal statute is entitled to deference." Ibid. (emphasis added). As the division in the Court in Medtronic suggests, this is not an easy issue. On the one hand, it is certainly possible to conclude that express preemption provisions are, by their very nature, intended to be judicially enforced and interpreted in lawsuits between private parties rather than interpreted by administrative agencies. See Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638, 649-50 (1990) (Chevron deference is not owed to an agency interpretation of provisions that were meant to be interpreted by the judiciary rather than the Executive Branch; "[a] precondition to deference under Chevron is a congressional delegation of administrative authority") (emphasis added); Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 177 (1990) (Scalia, J., joined by O'Connor & Kennedy, JJ., concurring in the judgment) (Chevron deference is not owed to agency interpretations of provisions that are "not administered by any agency but by the courts"). Moreover, it is certainly possible that an administrative agency might seek to reduce the scope of a preemption provision enacted by Congress in a way that is contrary to Congress's intent. Whatever the correct answer to this question should be, the Supreme Court's decision in Medtronic has provided a substantial answer. Agency interpretations of express preemption clauses are entitled to "substantial weight." There is no reason why an agency's expansive interpretation of an express preemption clause should be treated differently from a narrowing interpretation. The Deference Owed To An Agency's Views Finally, let me turn to the question of how much weight should be given to an administrative agency's determination that state law either conflicts with federal law or stands as an obstacle to the full accomplishment and execution of Congress's purposes. Here again, the Supreme Court's decisions point to the answer. In Medtronic, the Court stated that a federal agency may be "uniquely qualified to determine whether a particular form of state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." 518 U.S. at 496 (internal quotations omitted). Similarly, in Geier v. American Honda Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), the Court "place[d] some weight" on the agency's interpretation of the objectives underlying its own regulation and the extent to which a tort suit would stand as an obstacle to those objectives. Id. at 883. The Court explained: Congress has delegated to [the Department of Transportation I authority to implement the statute; the subject matter is technical; and the relevant history and background are complex and extensive. The agency is likely to have a thorough understanding of its own regulation and its objectives and is "uniquely qualified" to comprehend the likely impact of state requirements. Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 496 .... And DOT has explained [the regulation's] objectives, and the interference that "no-airbag" suits pose thereto, consistently over time. In these circumstances, the agency's own views should make a difference. 529 U.S. at 883 (citations omitted). This approach makes sense and should not be altered by legislation. An agency's assessment of whether state law poses an obstacle to Congress's purposes requires an understanding not only of how a complex regulatory scheme works and affects the real-world conduct of regulated parties but also of how the imposition of diverse state and local requirements affects that scheme and those regulated parties. It may also involve an identification of Congress's various purposes (which may be in tension with each other) and an assessment of the likely impact of state and local regulations on those purposes. Although (as explained above) the doctrine of implied conflict preemption is rooted in the Supremacy Conclusion Contrary to the suggestion of some, the law of federal preemption as it stands today is not in need of radical revision - and, indeed, it would be unwise to place additional limitations on the preemption doctrine, as some have proposed. Such additional limits would impair the ability of Congress and administrative agencies to bring about the many significant benefits that flow from preemptive statutes and regulations. By the same token, Congress should not allow controversies over a limited subset of preemption cases involving state tort requirements to drive far-reaching changes to the basic ground rules of preemption - changes that no doubt would have unintended effects across a wide range of federal law and federal programs. 1 Examples include the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. § 453: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 136v; the Packers and Stockyard Act. id. § 228c: the Agricultural Marketing Act, id. § 1626h; the Plant Protection Act, id. § 7756: the National Bank Act. 12 U.S.C. § 484(a); the Flammable Fabrics Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1203(a); the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, id. § 1261 note; the Child Safety Protection Act, id. § 1278 note; the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, id. § 1334; the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, id. § 1461; the Poison Prevention Packaging Act, id. § 1476(a); the Consumer Product Safety Act, id. § 2075(a): the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, id. § 2311(c); the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, id. § 6701 note; the Nutritional Education and Labeling Act, 21 U.S.C. § 343-1: the Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a): the Poultry Products Inspection Act, id. § 467e; the Federal Meat Inspection Act, id. § 678; the Egg Products Inspection Act, id. § 1052; the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 667; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), id. § I I44(a): the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2210(n)(2), 2014(hh): the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7543(a), 7573; the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. id. § 14502: the Boat Safety Act, 46 U.S.C. § 4306; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 5125: the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, id. § 14501(c); the Safety Appliance Acts, id. §§ 20301-20306; the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, id. § 30103(b)(I); the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, id. § 31 114(a): the General Aviation Revitalization Act, id. § 40 101: and the Airline Deregulation Act, id. § 41713(b).


text:
A collection of news and information related to Spencer Tracy published by this site and its partners.
Top Spencer Tracy Articles
Displaying items 111-119
Millard Kaufman, 92, dies; Oscar-nominated screenwriter
Story | Mar 17, 2009Millard Kaufman, the Oscar-nominated screenwriter of "Bad Day at Black Rock" and the co-creator of Mr. Magoo who waited until he was 90 to become a first-time novelist, has died. He was 92. Kaufman died of heart failure Saturday, two days after his... -
Coy Watson Jr. dies at 96; one of nine silent-era sibling actors
Jean Simmons dies at 80; radiant beauty was known for stunning versatility
'Inglourious Basterds,' 'Pulp Fiction' and Quentin Tarantino too at the Egyptian
75 achievements Oscar forgot
Story | Feb 9, 2003When the Oscar nominations come out Tuesday, there are bound to be cries of injustice -- and in many cases, those charges will have merit. Can anyone really defend the exclusion from the Oscar nominee list in various years of movies such as "Some Like... -
Stanley Kramer; Acclaimed Movies Focused on Social Issues
Story | Feb 20, 2001Stanley Kramer, the producer-director who earned the nickname "Hollywood's conscience" through his willingness to tackle controversial topics like racism, nuclear annihilation, greed and fascism, died Monday of pneumonia at the Motion Picture and... -
Loretta Young Dies; Elegant Film, TV Star
Story | Aug 13, 2000Loretta Young, the elegant Academy Award-winning actress who charmed film and television audiences for half a century with her beauty, wholesome image and aura of unabashed romanticism, died early Saturday of ovarian cancer, her longtime friend and... -
Ring Lardner Jr., last of the Hollywood 10, dies
Story | Nov 2, 2000Ring Lardner Jr., the Academy Award-winning screenwriter who was imprisoned for refusing to answer questions before the House Un-American Activities Committee, has died of cancer. He was 85. The last survivor of the so-called Hollywood 10, a group of... -
Lucille Ball Dies; TV's Comic Genius Was 77


text:
Microsoft looks to hit the Spotify
Microsoft said today that popular European music service Spotify will be coming to Windows Phone 7, as well as Microsoft's older Windows Mobile 6 generation phones.
The move gives Microsoft another music partner as it prepares to launch Windows Phone 7. Start-up Soundtrackr also is readying a Windows Phone 7 application, but, as first reported by CNET, Pandora won't have a Windows Phone 7 app at launch, despite a full-court press from Microsoft's top executives.
"Spotify is a great example of software innovation emanating from Sweden and Europe," Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said in a … Read more


text:
- The Foundry: Conservative Policy News from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -
Morning Bell: Our Constitution Is Under Fire
Posted By Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. On September 17, 2012 @ 8:44 am In First Principles | Comments Disabled
Today, the federal government has acquired an all but unquestioned dominance over virtually every area of American life. It acts without constitutional limits and increasingly regulates our most basic activities, from how much water is in our toilets to what kind of light bulbs we can buy.
So while we face many challenges, the most difficult task ahead—and the most important—is to restore constitutional limits on government. Forty visionaries [1] signed a piece of paper 225 years ago today that became one of the most vital documents in the world: the U.S. Constitution.
By design, it limited the power of government under the rule of law, created a vigorous framework that expanded economic opportunity, protected national independence and secured liberty and justice for all. But how is that limitation of powers working today?
The Judicial Branch. The rise of unlimited government is most familiar and most prominent in the form of judicial activism. The Founders called the judiciary the "least dangerous branch," but progressive judges have usurped the functions of the other two branches and transformed the courts into policymaking bodies with wide-ranging power. We need judges who take the Constitution seriously and follow it faithfully.
The Legislative Branch. For its part, Congress has long legislated without regard to limits on its powers. As a result, decisions that were previously the constitutional responsibility of elected legislators are delegated to executive branch administrators. Congress is increasingly an administrative body overseeing a vast array of bureaucratic policymakers and rule-making bodies. Congress should stop delegating to bureaucrats and actively take responsibility for all the laws (and regulations) that govern us.
The Executive Branch. Meanwhile, the President has unique and powerful responsibilities in our constitutional system as chief executive officer, head of state, and commander in chief. But the idea that the president— who is charged with the execution of the laws—doesn't have to wait for the lawmaking branch to make, amend, or abolish laws, but can and should act on his own is toxic to the rule of law. It violates the spirit, and potentially the letter, of the Constitution's separation of the legislative and executive powers of Congress and the President.
It won't be easy to return to the founding principles. We'll have to move one step at a time, and walk back decades worth of bad decisions by members of all three branches of government. But it can be done, if we use the written Constitution as our guide and we believe that it means what it says and says what it means.
The Founders worked from the premise that government exists to secure God-given rights, and that it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. And while many people take that for granted today, it was a novel idea in the 18th century and remains all too rare today.
Since Americans are equal, self-governing citizens and the United States government is limited, we have the liberty and opportunity to live our lives, control our fate, and pursue our happiness—and the American Dream [2].
That's worth celebrating, today and every day.
But while our Constitution remains remarkably hale and hearty after all these years (it's by far the longest-serving constitution in the world), it is under fire from many directions.
Let us remember today that we have the opportunity to rededicate this country to the Constitution and to the universal principles of liberty at its core. We can, and must, dedicate ourselves to the hard work of restoring constitutional self-government, and so preserving the American Dream for all.
Quick Hits:
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/17/morning-bell-our-constitution-is-under-fire/
URLs in this post:
[1] Forty visionaries: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/signers.html
[2] American Dream: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/defending-the-dream-why-income-inequality-does-not-threaten-opportunity
[3] strike : http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CHICAGO_SCHOOLS_STRIKE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-16-19-02-10
[4] protests of corporate firms: http://cnsnews.com/blog/dan-gainor/occupy-hit-40-corporate-targets-anniversary-protests-disguised-business-attire
[5] China : http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/world/asia/china-japan-islands-dispute/index.html
[6] iPhone 5: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/att-sets-iphone-sales-record-17251406#.UFcEFK5nWRo
[7] here: http://blog.heritage.org http://heritageaction.com/medicare/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.


text:
The World Land Trust Council meets approximately four times a year
WLT Council
Simon Barnes
(UK)A Suffolk-based writer on wildlife who also covers other subjects, most notably sport, and has published three novels. Writes Wild Notebook, a weekly column on The Times comment pages, and has written a number of books on wildlife, including How To Be A Bad birdwatcher and more recently, My Natural History. He is a member of Green Ink, assigning his Public Lending Rights to World Land Trust.
Dr Diana Bell
(UK)Diana is Director of the MSc in Applied Ecology & Conservation at the University of East Anglia where she is based in the Centre for Ecology, Evolution & Conservation. She is a conservation biologist who is particularly well known as an expert on rabbits and other lagomorphs, and more recently for her work on the role of wildlife diseases in the decline of endangered birds and mammals.
Mark Carwardine
(UK)Mark is a zoologist, an active and outspoken conservationist, an award-winning writer, a TV and radio presenter, a widely published photographer, a magazine columnist and a conservation consultant. He co-presented the six-part BBC2 television series Last Chance to See, with Stephen Fry, in which the unlikely duo travelled the world in search of endangered species (autumn 2009), and BBC2's The Museum of Life (spring 2010). For many years he presented the weekly half-hour radio programme Nature, on BBC Radio 4. He has written more than 50 books (including several bestsellers) and has been Chairman of the Judging Panel of the prestigious Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition since 2005. A co-founder of WLT's Green Ink project.
Kevin Cox
(UK)Magazine publisher who founded Origin Publishing in 1997. The company was bought by BBC Magazines in 2004 and Kevin took over responsibility for a number of BBC titles, including BBC Wildlife. He is now non-executive Chairman of Origin Publishing as well as Chairman of World Land Trust Trading Ltd. He lives on Dartmoor, manages an 80-acre wood and is putting up bird boxes for pied flycatchers.
Dr Lee Durrell
(UK)Is Honorary Director of the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, which operates one of the world's foremost centres for breeding endangered species and training conservation professionals at its headquarters in Jersey, as well as 50 conservation projects in 14 countries. Together with her late husband, Gerald Durrell, she launched the Programme for Belize, which became World Land Trust, in London in 1990. World Land Trust congratulates Dr Lee Durrell, on being awarded an MBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours in June 2011.
Willem Ferwerda
(The Netherlands)Tropical ecologist with long working experience in Latin America. Was director of IUCN Netherlands from 2000 - March 2012 during which he founded the Ecosystem Grants Programme (ODA support) and the Small grants for Purchase of Nature (financed by the Postcode Lottery), financing 1,500 local conservation projects in more than 40 countries. Founder of Leaders for Nature, a business network on biodiversity which convened 80 CEOs to sign an open letter to the Dutch government. He put 'biodiversity and ecosystems' on the agendas of the business community as well as the Dutch government and introduced The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. It resulted in an agreement between IUCN NL and the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers. As Special Advisor for the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management and Executive Fellow Business and Ecosystems at the Erasmus University-Rotterdam School of Management he is creating a practical mechanism that involves companies and investors to scale-up the restoration of ecosystems in partnership with science, local people, farmers and nature organizations. His main concern is what he calls, the disconnection of many people from nature. Intense wildlife and nature lover!
John Fuller
Alistair Gammell
(UK)Alistair Gammell's involvement in the conservation works spans four decades. Much of this time was spent working for the RSPB, particularly in international conservation issues and prior to his retirement he was RSPB's Director of International Issues. He has been a leading figure in international convention drafting. Since 2009 Alistair has been the director of the Pew Environment Group's Chagos campaign, which resulted in the declaration of the world's largest marine reserve (544,000 km sq). He is now working on marine protection is a number of other UK Overseas Territories.
Robert Giles
(UK)Robert Giles graduated with a MA in Economics from the University of Cambridge in 1982 and qualified as a Chartered Accountant in 1985. His professional career included working for the Crédit Lyonnais (1987 to 2002); he is the owner of ATRIUM software company. Based in London, Robert is an keen birdwatcher and conservationist and has travelled widely. He has supported conservation projects in Colombia and other countries since 1991.
Mark Leaney
(UK)Mark is finance director and co owner of Discover the World tour operator specialising in destinations like Iceland, New Zealand, Namibia, and the Arctic and Antarctic regions. He is an accountant by profession and has had previous Hon. Treasurer roles with The Association of Independent Tour Operators and The Diamond Centre for Handicapped Riders. Mark was WLT Hon Treasurer from 1995 to 2012, and is a Director of World Land Trust Trading Ltd.
Merloyd Ludington
(USA)Merloyd is an editor and publisher whose imprint, Merloyd Lawrence Books, co-publishes books on nature/environment, psychology, and biography with the Perseus Book Group. These include Living Downstream, on cancer and the environment by Sandra Steingraber, and works by the Swedish photographer/scientist Lennart Nilsson. She serves on several boards of conservation organizations including the Woods Hole Research Center, Northeast Wilderness Trust, and Island Press.
Alan Martin
(UK)Alan is a qualified accountant with a passion for wildlife. Now retired he spends much of his time supporting a number of conservation organisations including World Land Trust. Alan is also the Secretary of the Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest Trust, and acts as the main coordinator of the REGUA project in Brazil. He regularly visits REGUA enjoying the wildlife, particularly the birds and the moths (he is the co-author of A Guide to the Hawkmoths of the Serra dos Orgaos, South-eastern Brazil ). He is currently the Honorary Treasurer and a Council member of the RSPB, as well as being an ex-Director of Wetlands International, and the ex-Chairman of the British Trust for Ornithology.
Bill Oddie
(UK)Broadcaster, actor, television presenter, writer and musician, Bill Oddie is also a keen birdwatcher and conservationist. He has written a number of books about birds and birdwatching, as well as articles for many specialist publications including British Birds, Birdwatching Magazine and BBC Wildlife. One of his first forays in the world of television natural history was in 1985, as the subject of a Nature Watch Special: Bill Oddie - Bird Watcher, in which he was interviewed by Julian Pettifer and he went on to host many successful nature programmes. He spends as much time as possible out in the field with his binoculars.
Iain Orr
Richard Porter
(UK)Richard Porter, who lives in North Norfolk, worked for the RSPB for many years. Currently he advises BirdLife International on their Middle East programme, specialising in Yemen and Socotra. He is also adviser to Nature Iraq on its conservation projects and trains and directs their staff for their Key Biodiversity Area surveys. He is author of Birds of the Middle East.
Mark Stanley Price
(UK)Trained as a zoologist, Mark has spent more than 30 years working in conservation in Africa and the Middle East, researching among other things hartebeest feeding ecology in Kenya, before moving to Oman to design and run the pioneering project to restore the Arabian oryx to the wild. He was then Director of African Operations for the African Wildlife Foundation in Kenya for 12 years. After a spell as a consultant, in 2001 he became Chief Executive of Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust in Jersey. In 2008 he joined Oxford University's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU). He founded, then chaired for 12 years, the IUCN SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, and now sits on the Board of Marwell Wildlife. His main concerns now are that nature gets adequate attention, and that conservation prepares for the forthcoming challenges to the persistence of biodiversity.
Elaine Shaughnessy
(UK)After graduating in ecology, Elaine worked for the publisher Editions Alecto Ltd on major international projects including Banks' Florilegium, Audubon's Birds of America and Domesday Book. She later moved to IUCN to be its Head of Publishing and then became Head of Development for the Linnean Society of London (2006-9), where she was awarded the Tercentenary Medal. During 2010/early 2011 Elaine worked with WLT as Co-ordinator for its RHS Chelsea Flower Show exhibit which was awarded a RHS Gold Medal and prize for the Best in Section. She has undertaken other consultancies with WLT and now runs an independent consultancy in Cambridge. Elaine is a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, a member of the IUCN Commission on Education and Communication, and a Co-opted Member of Council for Society for the History of Natural History.
Byron Swift
(USA)Byron has dedicated much of his career to helping establish and support private reserves in Latin America. Internationally, he has worked in more than 15 countries on environmental and natural resources policy, and has published widely on issues involving biodiversity and natural areas conservation, climate change and industrial pollution. Byron formerly worked at the Environmental Law Institute in Washington DC, on programmes to improve environmental law, policy and management. He directed the United States office of IUCN and served in the legal office for parks and wildlife of the US Department of the Interior.
Nancy Weiss
(USA)During 30 years as a private practice general surgeon in Massachusetts, Nancy was president of her medical staff and then president of the county medical society. Since retiring in 2007 she has continued to practice medicine part-time on a volunteer basis. She has been involved with both The Nature Conservancy (TNC, Massachusetts, USA chapter) and the Massachusetts Audubon Society (MassAudobon) and was an active member of the MassAudubon board for 11 years eventually serving as chair of the conservation committee. During that time she gave a 160 acre parcel of land to MassAudubon bought expressly to preserve its varied habitat and active beaver ponds. She is now an honorary director and has volunteered with the land protection staff helping them monitor conservation restrictions, among other things. Nancy cooperated with TNC on a land protection project, buying 275 acres of land with a 25 acre pond. As part of her continuing commitment to helping birds Nancy currently serves on the board of American Bird Conservancy.
Sue Wells
(UK)Sue Wells started her conservation career working with TRAFFIC International, at a time when John Burton was its Chairman, and her work on the international trade in corals, sea shells and marine turtles was the beginning of a life long interest. She went from TRAFFIC to IUCN where she worked on the Invertebrate Red Data Book, followed by numerous publications on coral reefs of the world, a subject on which she is now one of the world's acknowledged experts. Sue has visited many of the world's coral reefs, and has advised World Land Trust on numerous projects, including setting up the Philippine Reef and Rainforest Project. She now works as a consultant, specialising in marine conservation.
Contact us
Email: email@example.com
Tel: +44 (0)1986 874422
More details »


text:
Navigation path
Updated : 12/2012
Income tax rates in 2013 (for a single person)
Bracket |
Annual income |
Rate |
1 |
up to €32,800 |
20% |
2 |
over €32,801 |
41% |
Take into account any tax credits. Their amount depends on your personal situation.
Under the "Self-Assessment" system there is a common date for the payment of tax and filing of tax returns, i.e. 31 October. This system, which is known as 'Pay and File' allows you to file your return and pay the balance of tax outstanding for the previous year at the same time. Under this system you must:
E-filing is mandatory in certain situations.
The Customer Service Standards set out in detail the level of service you can expect in your dealings with the Irish tax authorities.
Read your tax assessment letter carefully to find out where exactly you should lodge an appeal (if you need to do so) and which procedures you need to follow.
Tax laws - EU and individual countries
Check also what your EU rights are.
Contact points
Haven't found the information you need? Do you have a problem to solve?
Get expert advice from the European business support network


text:
Complete forecast by
Text size:
Pumpkin Pie Dessert
Comment on this recipe
Crust: 1 package yellow cake mix (without pudding), reserve 1 cup 1/2 cup melted margarine 1 egg Filling: 3 cups (1-pound 14-ounce can) pumpkin pie mix 2 eggs 2/3 cup milk Topping: 1 cup reserved cake mix 1/4 cup sugar 1 teaspoon cinnamon 1/4 cup margarine
To make the crust, combine crust ingredients. Lightly grease bottom only of a 9x13-inch pan. Press crust into bottom of pan. To make the filling, combine filling ingredients until smooth. Pour over crust, smoothing evenly. Combine topping ingredients and sprinkle over filling. Bake at 350 degrees for 45 to 50 minutes or until knife inserted near center comes out clean. Solid pack pumpkin may be used instead of pumpkin mix. Add 2-1/2 teaspoons pumpkin pie spice and 1/2 cup firmly packed brown sugar.
Carol Koester Rock Island
Baked Eggplant (More recipes)