Compare "Const."

Title 31, Money and Finance. Constitutional Provisions Apportionment of Representatives among the several States, see Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 3, and Amend. XIV, § 2. Temporary Increase in Membership Representation of States

Enactment of section 301 would also implement the “limited times” provision of the Constitution [Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8], which has become distorted under the traditional concept of “publication.” Common

terms of their successors shall then begin.” Time for election of Representatives, see Const

present statutory language is substantially the same as the empowering language of the Constitution [Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8], a recurring question has been whether the statutory and the constitutional provisions

legislature of such State shall direct”. Constitutional Provisions Day of voting by electors, see Const. Art. II, § 1, cl. 3. Voting by electors, see Const. Amend

terms of their successors shall then begin.” Time for election of Senators, see Const. Art. I, § 4, cl. 1. Vacancies in the Senate, see Const. Amend. XVII

cited as the ‘Presidential Transitions Effectiveness Act’.” Constitutional Provisions Time of choosing electors, see Const

(a) In general Except as provided in subsection (b), the

repealed by act Dec. 16, 1930, ch. 14, § 1 , 46 Stat. 1029 . See Const. Amend. 19. Section 619, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, § 63 , 31 Stat. 152 , prevented from voting

(a) The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every

would not exclude it from the Act's coverage. 33 33 Tobin v. Pennington-Winter Const. Co., ante; Oklahoma v. Atkinson Co., 313 U.S. 508; Cuascut v. Standard Dredging Corp ... Loftis Co., 167 F. (2d) 286 (C.A. 4). 36 Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante. 37 Divins v. Hazeltine Electronics Corp., 163 F. (2d) 100 (C.A. 2); Cf. Walling v. Haile Gold

Mitchell v. Vollmer, ante; Bennett v. V. P. Loftis Co., ante; Mitchell v. Chambers Const. Co., 214 F. (2d) 515 (C.A. 10); Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante; Tobin v. Pennington-Winter ... Const. Co., 198 F. (2d) 334 (C.A. 5), certiorari denied

Federal law and policy. (c) Preemption of State law. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, cl. 2, and in order to achieve important Federal interests, including, but not limited

premises of such a facility. 17 Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, ante; Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante. (3) On the other hand, the production and furnishings, within the State, of construction materials ... maintenance and repair, it would be subject to the Act. 22 22 Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante. (d) Production of materials for use in construction work on interstate instrumentalities

bookkeeping, auditing, promotional, drafting, engineering, custodial and stock room employees. 11 10 Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., 156 F. (2d) 932, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 785; Chambers Construction ... Chambers v. Mitchell, decided June 5, 1956 (C.A. 8); Tobin v. Pennington-Winter Const. Co. ante; Mitchell v. Vollmer Co., ante. 11 Mitchell v. Brown Engineering Co., ante; Chambers Construction

(a) The recordkeeping requirements that were in effect on January

grain storage (see Tobin v. Flour Mils, 185 F. 2d 596; Mitchell v. Sampson Const. Co. (D. Kan.) 14 WH Cases

country elevators have been recognized by the courts. See, for example, Mitchell v. Sampson Const. Co. (D. Kan.) 14 WH Cases 269; Tobin v. Flour Mills, 185 F. 2d 596; Holt

receive grain except by rail. (See Tobin v. Flour Mills, supra; Mitchell v. Sampson Const. Co. (D. Kan.) 14 WH Cases 269.) It is the facilities of a country elevator

Fitzgerald Construction Co., ante; Bennett v. V. P. Loftis, ante; Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante; and Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 188 F. (2d) 733. 54 Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural

Bennett v. V. P. Loftis Co., 167 F. (2d) 286 (C.A.4); Tobin v. Pennington-Winter Const. Co., 198 F. (2d) 334 (C.A.10), certiorari denied 345 U.S. 915; See General Coverage Bulletin