The prior instance of talks ended even more abruptly, after only 80 minutes behind closed doors.
|
|
"The committee must see everything, as was done in every prior instance," he said, adding that some materials may just need to be seen by lawmakers but not released to public.
|
|
Robert Califf, who served as FDA commissioner in the Obama administration until January, said he couldn't think of a prior instance in which American researchers did not set up an IRB abroad.
|
|
Additionally, in the most recent prior instance in which the Department conducted an investigation of a sitting President, Kenneth Starr produced a 445-page report to Congress along with 18 boxes of accompanying evidence.
|
|
The Justice Department cited only one prior instance in U.S. history of a similar appointment as acting attorney general of an official who had not previously been confirmed to his job by the Senate, and that occurred in 1866.
|
|
Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he knew of no prior instance of a president linking free speech and federal funding of American universities, which are built on a commitment to fostering civic discourse.
|
|
The Blind Beggar of Alexandria was hardly the first disguise play to appear on the Elizabethan stage; the anonymous The Knack to Know an Honest Man (1594), another Admiral's play, is one prior instance, and others can be noted.Roslyn L. Knutson, "Toe to Toe across Maid Lane: Repertorial Competition at the Rose and Globe, 1599–1600," in: Acts of Criticism: Performance Matters in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries, Paul Nelsen and June Schlueter, eds. Madison/Teaneck, NJ, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2006; pp. 21–37, esp. pp.
|
|
The two concoct a plan to have Cat "agree" to donate one of his, due to Cat being an inherently selfish creature who refuses to do so otherwise. After successfully swindling Cat, the gang are ready for Snacky to operate, only for Snacky to reveal he is not Asclepius. The crew formulate a plan, however, using Snacky's knowledge of stasis booths, acquired from regularly serving Gonzalez and overhearing his conversations on the subject. The four of them use a stasis booth, now able to time travel to a prior instance onboard Red Dwarf, to knockout Lister from a couple days prior and take his kidneys, with Kryten installing an "MTK chip" into his bloodstream keeping him alive until after the encounter with Asclepius.
|
|
When Emperor Suzong consulted Li Kui on whether this was appropriate, Li Kui opposed, pointing out that the only prior instance when such an epithet was given to a living empress was to Empress Wei, the powerful and corrupt wife of Emperor Suzong's granduncle Emperor Zhongzong. After a lunar eclipse -- which indicated divine displeasure with the empress -- occurred around the same time, Emperor Suzong tabled the proposal. By this point, Li Kui also had the additional office of deputy minister of rites (禮部侍郎, Libu Shilang). He was displeased with how the officials in charge of the imperial examinations at the time were making their testing questions test highly obscure facts, and he believed that this led to the selection of examinees who were not necessarily talented or capable in writing.
|
|
At What Cost? has also been used by other similar but unrelated groups. The unionization vote was held on October 23 and 24, 2002, and the union was rejected. At What Cost? was considered instrumental in the unusually large 90% turnout for the vote and in the surprising 2-to-1 defeat of the unionization proposal. There had been no prior instance in American graduate student unionization history where a unionization proposal was defeated by a vote. At What Cost is widely known about within the area of graduate student unionization, and it appeared in the October 26, 2002 issue of The New York Times, in the January 17, 2003 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, and on the front page of the October 19, 2002 issue of the Ithaca Journal, as well as in multiple other issues of the Ithaca Journal and the Cornell Daily Sun.
|
|
In that prior instance, the Congress passed a law (over the veto of the then-President) that required the President to secure Congressional approval for the removal of Cabinet members and other executive branch officers. The Act was not declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States until 1926. When Andrew Johnson violated the Act, the House of Representatives impeached him; action in the Senate to remove him failed by one vote. Here, the separation of powers issue is whether the War Powers Resolution requirements for Congressional approval and presidential reporting to Congress change the constitutional balance established in Articles I and II, namely that Congress is explicitly granted the sole authority to "declare war", "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" (Article 1, Section 8), and to control the funding of those same forces, while the Executive has inherent authority as Commander in Chief.
|
|