§ 128-2 Abatement of hazards required.
§ 128-3 Inspection and report.
§ 128-4 Resolution to serve notice.
§ 128-6 Filing of notice.
§ 128-8 Emergency measures to vacate premises.
§ 128-9 Costs and expenses; liens.
§ 128-10 Penalties for offenses; other remedies.
This chapter shall apply to the territory of the Town of Southampton outside incorporated villages.
A building or structure or equipment therein shall be deemed to be unsafe or unsanitary if found to be dangerous to life, health, property or safety of the public or occupants. Such condition may be as a result of a lack of provision of minimum safeguards to protect or warn occupants in the event of fire, or because such structure is unsanitary or vermin or rat infested, contains filth and contamination or lacks ventilation, illumination, sanitary or heating facilities or other essential equipment required by this article, or contains unsafe equipment or nonfunctioning equipment that is so damaged, decayed, dilapidated, structurally unsafe or unsound that partial collapse is possible. For purposes of this chapter, "structure" is anything constructed or erected on or under the ground or upon another structure or building, excluding walkways and driveways. "Structure" includes the word "building." All such buildings and structures are hereby declared to be illegal and are prohibited and shall be abated by repair and rehabilitation or by demolition and removal in accordance with the procedures of this chapter.
The Fire Inspector shall inspect any building or structure, either upon a complaint or upon his own knowledge, where a building or structure may be dangerous or unsafe pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The Fire Inspector shall file a report with the Town Board with regard to the condition of any building or structure so inspected. The report shall include the date of the inspection, the condition of the building or structure, a determination as to whether the building or structure is dangerous or unsafe, an opinion as to what caused the condition and recommendations for the correction of any dangerous or unsafe condition.
Where the Town Board, pursuant to the Fire Inspector's report, finds a building or structure to be dangerous or unsafe, the Board, by resolution, shall direct the Fire Inspector to give notice to be served on the owner or some one of the owner's executors, legal representatives, agents, lessees or other person having a vested or contingent interest in the same.
Notice shall be served either personally or by registered or certified mail, addressed to the last known address, if any, as shown by the records of the Receiver of Taxes and/or in the office of the County Clerk or County Register. If service is made by registered or certified mail, a copy of such notice shall be posted on the premises.
A statement of the particulars of why the building is unsafe or dangerous.
An order requiring buildings or structures to be repaired or removed.
A statement that the securing or removal of the building or structure shall commence within 10 days from the date of service of the notice and shall be completed within 30 days thereafter. The Fire Inspector may extend the time of compliance specified in the notice where there is evidence of intent to comply within the time specified and conditions exist which prevent immediate compliance. In granting any such extension of time, the Fire Inspector may impose such conditions as he may deem appropriate.
A statement that, in the event of the neglect or refusal of the person served with notice to comply with the same, a hearing will be held before the Southampton Town Board, notice of which and the time and place thereof to be specified in the notice to the owner referred to in this section.
A statement that, in the event that the Town Board, after hearing, shall determine that the building or structure is unsafe or dangerous to the public, the Town Board may order the building or structure to be repaired and secured or taken down and removed.
A statement that in the event that the building or structure shall be determined by the Town to be unsafe or dangerous, and in the event of the neglect or refusal of the owner to repair or remove the same within the time provided, the Town may remove such building or structure by whatever means it deems appropriate and assess all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the proceedings to remove or secure, including the cost of actually removing said building or structure, against the land on which said buildings or structures are located.
Notice served pursuant to this chapter shall also be filed in the office of the County Clerk. Such notice shall be filed by such Clerk in the same manner as a notice of pendency pursuant to Article 65 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and shall have the same effect as a notice of pendency, except as otherwise provided. Notice so filed shall be effective for a period of one year from the date of filing; provided, however, that it may be vacated upon the order of a judge or justice of a court of record or upon the consent of the Town Attorney. The Clerk of the county where such notice is filed shall mark such notice and any record or docket thereof as canceled of record upon the presentation and filing of such consent or of a certified copy of such order.
Before a building or structure may be removed by the Town, a public hearing shall be held.
If the Chief Fire Marshal so determines, in his/her inspection of any building or structure, that said building or structure or equipment is dangerous, unsafe or unsanitary pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, he/she shall promptly require the building or structure or portion thereof to be vacated forthwith and not be reoccupied until the specified repairs are completed, inspected and approved by the Fire Marshal. For this purpose, he/she may enter such building or structure or land on which it stands or adjoining land or structures with such assistance and at such cost as may be necessary. He/she may also order adjacent structures to be vacated and protect the public by appropriate barricades or such other means as may be necessary, and for this purpose may close a private or public right-of-way. The Chief Fire Marshal shall cause to be posted at each entrance to such building or structure a notice stating: "This building is unsafe and its use or occupancy has been prohibited by the Fire Marshal." Such notice shall remain posted until the required repairs are made or demolition is completed. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation or their agents or other persons to remove such notice without written permission of the Chief Fire Marshal or for any person to enter the building except for the purpose of making the required repairs or the demolition thereof.
All costs and expenses incurred by the Town of Southampton in connection with any proceeding or any work done to remove the danger or in connection with the demolition and removal of any such building or structure shall be assessed against the land on which such building or structure is located, and a statement of such expenses shall be presented to the owner of the property, or if the owner cannot be ascertained or located, then such statement shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises. Such assessment shall be and constitute a lien upon such land. If the owner shall fail to pay such expenses within 10 days after the statement is presented or posted, a legal action may be brought to collect such assessment or to foreclose such lien. As an alternative to the maintenance of any such action, the Fire Inspector may file a certificate of the actual expenses incurred as aforesaid, together with a statement identifying the property in connection with which the expenses were incurred and the owner thereof with the assessors, who shall, in the preparation of the next assessment roll, assess such amount upon such property. Such amount shall be included in the levy against such property, shall constitute a lien and shall be collected and enforced in the same manner by the same proceedings, at the same time and under the same penalties as is provided by law for the collection and enforcement of real property taxes in the Town of Southampton.
Vacant structures shall comply with § 311.1 through 311.4 of the Fire Code of New York State.


text:
Mr. W. A. Gunter for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Francis G. Caffey, John C. Breckinridge, A. A. Wiley, Gordon Macdonald, and John G. McNeel for defendant in error.
This is an action for taxes brought by the state of Alabama against the executrix of the will of a citizen of Alabama. It appears on the record that the property in dispute is stock in [188 U.S. 730, 731] railroads incorporated in other states than Alabama, and that the objection was taken seasonably by plea and by requests for instructions to the jury that the tax was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, because no similar tax was levied on the stock of domestic railroads or of foreign railroads doing business in that state. Demurrers to the pleas were sustained, there was a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment, which latter was affirmed by the supreme court of the state without discussion, on the authority of its decision at an earlier stage (State v. Kidd, 125 Ala. 413, 28 So. 418), and the case is brought here by writ of error.
The statutes levying the tax in question are the Code of 1886, 453, cl. 13, and the Code of 1896, 3911, cl. 14. They are general clauses, which need not be set forth, as their effect is not disputed under the construction given to them by the supreme court of the state. The exemption by the Code of 1886 of stock in domestic railroads, and in others that list substantially all their property for taxation (Sturges v. Carter, 114 U.S. 511, 522 , 29 S. L. ed. 240, 244, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1014), is not denied, and while it is denied by the defendant in error that there is a similar exemption by the Code of 1896, for the purposes of decision we shall assume, without examination, that it is granted. State v. Kidd, 125 Ala. 413, 422, 28 So. 418. On this assumption the argument for the plaintiff in error is that if foreign stock is treated for purposes of taxation as present by fiction in the domicil, it must be treated as present also for purposes of protection; that the tax is a tax on values, and that net values of similar articles must be treated alike. It is said that you cannot look further back.
If the argument went further and denied the right to tax on fiction at all, and therefore denied the right to tax foreign stocks, it would seem to us to have more logical force, although we are far from implying that it would be unanswerable, or that it can be regarded as open. Very likely such taxes can be justified without the help of fiction. Sturges v. Carter, 114 U.S. 511 , 29 L. ed. 240, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1014; Dwight v. Boston, 12 Allen, 316; Dyer v. Osborne, 11 R. I. 321, 23 Am. Rep. 460. But the argument does not go to that extent, and, limited as it is, the proposition that the plaintiff in error is denied the equal protection of the laws for the reason which we have stated [188 U.S. 730, 732] strikes us as wholly without force. We see nothing to prevent a state from taxing stock in some domestic corporations and leaving stock in others untaxed on the ground that it taxes the property and franchises of the latter to an amount that imposes indirectly a proportional burden on the stock. When we come to corporations formed and having their property and business elsewhere, the state must tax the stock held within the state if it is to tax anything, and we now are assuming the right to tax stock in foreign corporations to be conceded. If it does tax that stock, it may take into account that the property and franchise of the corporation are untaxed, on the same ground that it might do the same thing with a domestic corporation. There is no rule that the state cannot look behind the present net values of different stocks. See American Sugar Ref. Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 89 , 45 L. ed. 102, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 43.
We say that the state in taxing stock may take into account the fact that the property and franchises of the corporation are untaxed, whereas in other cases they are taxed; and we say untaxed, because they are not taxed by the state in question. The real grievance in a case like the present is that, more than probably, they are taxed elsewhere. But with that the state of Alabama is not concerned. No doubt it would be a great advantage to the country and to the individual states if principles of taxation could be agreed upon which did not conflict with each other, and a common scheme could be adopted by which taxation of substantially the same property in two jurisdictions could be avoided. But the Constitution of the United States does not go so far. Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S. 517, 524 , 29 S. L. ed. 715, 718, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 , 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Dyer v. Osborne, 11 R. I. 321, 327, 23 Am. Rep. 460; Cooley, Taxn. 2d ed. 221n. One aspect of the problem was touched in the case of Blackstone v. Miller, at the present term, 188 U.S. 189 , ante, p. 277, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277. The state of Alabama is not bound to make its laws harmonize in principle with those of other states. If property is untaxed by its laws, then for the purpose of its laws the property is not taxed at all.
It is said that the state may not tax a man because by fiction his property is within the jurisdiction, and then discriminate against him upon the fact that it is without. The state does [188 U.S. 730, 733] nothing of the kind. It adheres throughout to the fiction, if it be one, that the stock, the property of the plaintiff in error, is within the jurisdiction. There is no inconsistency in the state's recognizing at the same time that the property of the corporation, that which gives the plaintiff's stock its value, is taxed or untaxed, as the case may be. There is no inconsistency in recognizing that it is untaxed because it cannot be reached. Shares of stock may be within a state, and the property of the corporation outside it.
We need not repeat the commonplaces as to the large latitude allowed to the states for classification upon any reasonable basis. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U.S. 339, 351 , 352 S., 35 L. ed. 1035, 1039, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 810, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 250; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 155 , 41 S. L. ed. 666, 668, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509, 521 , 43 S. L. ed. 786, 793, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Atchison, T . & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U.S. 96 , 43 L. ed. 909, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; American Sugar Ref. Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 89 , 45 L. ed. 102, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 43. What is reasonable is a question of practical details, into which fiction cannot enter.
Practically, the law before us, in the broad aspect in which alone we are asked to consider it, seems to us to work out substantial justice and equality, if we leave on one side the probable taxation by other states, which does not affect the state of Alabama's rights.
Justices Harlan and White dissented.
NOTE.-No. 157. Kidd v. Alabama. This case was to abide the result of the foregoing.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Prati s.r.l., with registered office in Faenza (RA), via Deruta, 2, Tax Code and VAT number 05592010481, as the controller of personal data, hereby informs you that the personal data of customers, suppliers and users of its website will be processed in the following ways and in compliance with the principles established by the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation).
1) entering into agreements with the Data Controller and managing the ensuing relationships in the pre-contractual, contractual, fiscal and accounting phases; (the legal basis of the aforementioned data processing is the fulfilment of both contractual obligations and legal obligations to which the Data Controller is subject).
2) any direct marketing activities in relation to pre-existing customers (sending newsletters, information activities, market research, advertising communication); (the legal basis of the aforementioned data processing is legitimate interest).
Data processing will be carried out through the operations indicated in art. 4 n. 2 of the GDPR by using manual, IT and web-based systems. The data will be recorded, processed and stored in our paper and electronic archives.
The data will be processed by authorised persons.
For the activities referred to in art. 1.1., personal data will be stored until the processing of same will no longer be necessary for the purpose for which they had been collected and, in any case, not later than 10 years from the termination of the contractual relationship.
For the activities referred to in art. 1.2., personal data will be stored until the processing of same will no longer be necessary for the purpose for which they had been collected and, in any case, t later than 2 years from the termination of the contractual relationship.
The data may be made accessible to employees and/or consultants of the Data Controller in their capacity as persons authorised to process data or data processors.
The data may be disclosed to meet the obligations provided for by law or for a correct implementation of the existing contractual relationship to, for example, social security, welfare and insurance organisations, trade associations, tax and labour authorities, professional legal, commercial, and tax counselling offices, company auditors, banks and credit institutions.
The data will not in any case be disclosed to indeterminate entities.
The submission of data is mandatory for the purposes referred to in art. 1.1.; therefore, any refusal to submit such data or incorrect communication thereof implies the objective impossibility for the undersigned company to manage pre-contractual and contractual relationships.
However, the submission of data for the purposes referred to in art. 1.2. is optional; as the data subject, you may therefore decide not to submit any data or to exercise, even at a later stage, the right to object according to art. 21 of the GDPR.
In this case, your personal data may no longer be used for direct marketing (and therefore, you will no longer receive any newsletters, advertisements, etc.) but you will continue to be entitled to the services referred to in art. 1.1..
the data subject may also: a) withdraw consent at any time, without affecting the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal; b) receive timely notification of any unauthorised use of personal data within the limits of the provisions of art. 34; c) submit a claim to the Data Protection Authority.
The data subject may exercise his or her rights by contacting the Data Controller, Prati s.r.l., either by writing to the company's registered office in Faenza (RA), via Deruta, 2, or by sending an e-mail to the address info@praticompany.com.
The use of session cookies (which are not permanently stored on the user's computer and disappear when the browser is closed) is strictly limited to the transmission of session identifiers (consisting of random numbers generated by the server) necessary to enable a safe and efficient site.
Acquisition of personal identification data is not allowed on this site and session cookies avoid the use of technologies that could compromise the privacy of the users.
Below is a detailed list of all the cookies used. The user can deactivate them individually using the specific browser options.
Full address of the website. Example: "www.praticompany.com".
Level of the user connected. It always refers to user logged except in cases in which you log in as administrator (visitors can not login). Value always set to "40".
Display mode of the managing windows that are activated only when you log in as an administrator. Value always set to "normal".
ISO three-character that indicates the language used to navigate the public site. Value set to "ita" or "eng" depending on the configuration of your browser.
ISO three-character that indicaters the language used to navigate the control panel. Value set to "ita" or "eng" depending on the configuration of your browser.
ISO three-character code of the language currently used to display the contents of this site. Sample value: "ita".
System parameter to manage navigation within the index of the site pages. Sample value: "pagine = 98".
System parameter to manage navigation within the index of the site pages. Sample value: "pagine".
Internal parameter to manage navigation within the structure of the site pages. Sample value: "campiModulo".
Control code used in the contact form and forms like "work with us" to verify that a bot is not connected. Random value generated each page load. Sample value: "ZPX648".

matches:
art. 4
art. 1
art. 1
art. 1
art. 1
art. 21
art. 1
art. 34


text:
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Outstanding Reviewer Award.
M. Keck and J. Davis, 2011, "Recovery and Reasoning about Occlusions in 3D using Few Cameras with Applications to 3D Tracking." International Journal of Computer Vision 95, no. 3, 240-264 - 240-264.
Keck M. and Davis J., 2011, "Recovery and Reasoning about Occlusions in 3D using Few Cameras with Applications to 3D Tracking." International Journal of Computer Vision 95, no. 3, 240-264 - 240-264.
V. Sharma and J. Davis, 2009, "A Feature-Selection Approach to Fusion of Electro-Optical and Infrared Imagery." Electronic Image & Signal Processing February, 3 pages - 3 pages.
Davis J. and Sharma V., 2007, "Background-Subtraction using Contour-based Fusion of Thermal and Visible Imagery." Computer Vision and Image Understanding 106, no. 2-3, 162-182 - 162-182.
Murray, A., Kim, K., Davis, J., Machiraju, R., and Parent, R., 2007, "Coverage Optimization to Support Security Monitoring." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 31, 133-147 - 133-147.
Davis J., Morison A., and Woods D., 2007, "An Adaptive Focus-of-Attention Model for Video Surveillance and Monitoring." Machine Vision and Applications Journal 18, no. 1, 41-64 - 41-64.
J. Davis and A. Tyagi, 2006, "Minimal-Latency Human Action Recognition using Reliable-Inference." Image and Vision Computing 24, 455-472 - 455-472.
H. Gao and J. Davis, 2006, "Why Direct LDA is not Equivalent to LDA." Pattern Recognition 39, 1002-1006 - 1002-1006.
J. Davis and H. Gao, 2004, "An Expressive Three-Mode Principal Components Model for Gender Recognition." Journal of Vision 4, no. 5, 362-377 - 362-377.
R. Tan and J. Davis, 2004, "Differential Video Coding of Face and Gesture Events in Presentation Videos." Computer Vision and Image Understanding 96, no. 2, 200-215 - 200-215.
J. Davis and H. Gao, 2003, "An Expressive Three-Mode Principal Components Model of Human Action Style." Image and Vision Computing 21, no. 11, 1001-1016 - 1001-1016.
G. Bradski and J. Davis, 2002, "Motion Segmentation and Pose Recognition with Motion History Gradients." International Journal of Machine Vision and Applications 13, no. 3, 174-184 - 174-184.
Bradski G. and Davis J., 2002, "Motion Segmentation and Pose Recognition with Motion History Gradients." International Journal of Machine Vision and Applications 13, no. 3, 174-184 - 174-184.
A. Bobick and J. Davis, 2001, "The Recognition of Human Movement Using Temporal Templates." IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 23, no. 3, 257-267 - 257-267.
C. Pinhanez, J. Davis, S. Intille, M. Johnson, A. Wilson, A. Bobick, and B. Blumberg, 2000, "Physically Interactive Story Environments." IBM Systems Journal 39, no. 3/4, 438-455 - 438-455.
Pinhanez C., Davis J., Intille S., Johnson M., Wilson A., Bobick A., and Blumberg B., 2000, "Physically Interactive Story Environments." IBM Systems Journal 39, no. 3/4, 438-455 - 438-455.
Bobick A., Intille S., Davis J., Baird F., Pinhanez C., Campbell L., Ivanov Y., Schutte A., and Wilson A., 1999, "The KidsRoom: A Perceptually-Based Interactive and Immersive Story Environment." Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8, no. 4, 367-391 - 367-391.
J. Davis and M. Shah, 1999, "Toward 3-D Gesture Recognition." International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 13, no. 3, 381-393 - 381-393.
Davis J. and Shah M., 1999, "Toward 3-D Gesture Recognition." International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 13, no. 3, 381-393 - 381-393.
J. Davis and M. Shah, 1994, "Visual Gesture Recognition." Vision, Image and Signal Processing 141, no. 2, 101-106 - 101-106.
Davis J. and Shah M., 1994, "Visual Gesture Recognition." Vision, Image and Signal Processing 141, no. 2, 101-106 - 101-106.
J. Barker and J. Davis "Temporally-Dependent Dirichlet Process Mixtures for Egocentric Video Segmentation." (6 2014).
D. Zamalieva, A. Yilmaz, and J. Davis "A Multi-Transformational Model for Background Subtraction with Moving Cameras." (9 2014).
Barker, J.W.; Davis, J.W.; IEEE, "Temporally-Dependent Dirichlet Process Mixtures for Egocentric Video Segmentation." (1 2014).
Zamalieva, D.; Yilmaz, A.; Davis, J.W. "A Multi-transformational Model for Background Subtraction with Moving Cameras." (1 2014).
Barker, J.W.; Davis, J.W. "Temporally-dependent dirichlet process mixtures for egocentric video segmentation." (1 2014).
D. Zamalieva, A. Yilmaz, and J. Davis "Exploiting Temporal Geometry for Moving Camera." (8 2014).
Barker, J.W.; Davis, J.W. "Temporally-Dependent Dirichlet Process Mixtures for Egocentric Video Segmentation." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). (1 2014).
Zamalieva, D.; Yilmaz, A.; Davis, J.W. "A Multi-transformational Model for Background Subtraction with Moving Cameras." in 13th European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). (1 2014).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "One-class multiple instance learning and applications to target tracking." (4 2013).
K. Sankaranarayanan and J. Davis "One-Class Multiple Instance Learning and Applications to Target Tracking." in Asian Conference on Computer Vision. (11 2012).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W.; IEEE, "Segmentation and Scene Modeling for MIL-based Target Localization." (1 2012).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "Segmentation and scene modeling for MIL-based target localization." (12 2012).
K. Sankaranarayanan and J. Davis "Segmentation and Scene Modeling for MIL-based Target Localization." in IAPR International Conference on Pattern Recognition. (11 2012).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "Segmentation and Scene Modeling for MIL-based Target Localization." in 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). (1 2012).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "PTZ camera modeling and panoramic view generation via focal plane mapping." (3 2011).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "PTZ Camera Modeling and Panoramic View Generation via Focal Plane Mapping." in 10th Asian Conference on Computer Vision. (1 2011).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "Object Association Across PTZ Cameras using Logistic MIL." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). (1 2011).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W.; IEEE, "Object Association Across PTZ Cameras using Logistic MIL." (1 2011).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "PTZ Camera Modeling and Panoramic View Generation via Focal Plane Mapping." (1 2011).
Streib, K.; Davis, J.W.; IEEE, "Using Ripley's K-function to Improve Graph-Based Clustering Techniques." (1 2011).
Streib, K.; Davis, J.W. "Using Ripley's K-function to Improve Graph-Based Clustering Techniques." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). (1 2011).
K. Streib and J. Davis "Using Ripley's K-function to Improve Graph-Based Clustering Techniques." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (6 2011).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "Object association across PTZ cameras using logistic MIL." (9 2011).
Streib, K.; Davis, J.W. "Using Ripley's K-function to improve graph-based clustering techniques." (9 2011).
K. Sankaranarayanan and J. Davis "Object Association Across PTZ Cameras using Logistic MIL." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (6 2011).
Nedrich, M.; Davis, J.W. "Learning scene entries and exits using coherent motion regions." (12 2010).
Streib, K.; Davis, J.W. "Exploiting Multiple Cameras for Environmental Pathlets." in 6th International Symposium on Visual Computing. (1 2010).
K. Sankaranarayanan and J. Davis "PTZ Camera Modeling and Panoramic View Generation via Focal Plane Mapping." in Asian Conference on Computer Vision. (11 2010).
M. Nedrich and J. Davis "Learning Scene Entries and Exits using Coherent Motion Regions." in International Symposium on Visual Computing. (11 2010).
Nedrich, M.; Davis, J.W. "Learning Scene Entries and Exits Using Coherent Motion Regions." (1 2010).
Streib, K.; Davis, J.W. "Extracting pathlets from weak tracking data." (11 2010).
Streib, K.; Davis, J.W.; Hussain, M.; KarHan, T. et al. "Exploiting Multiple Cameras for Environmental Pathlets." (1 2010).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "Attention-Based Target Localization Using Multiple Instance Learning." (1 2010).
Streib, K.; Davis, J.W. "Exploiting multiple cameras for environmental pathlets." (12 2010).
K. Sankaranarayanan and J. Davis "Attention-based Target Localization using Multiple Instance Learning [Best Paper Award]." in International Symposium on Visual Computing. (11 2010).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "Attention-Based Target Localization Using Multiple Instance Learning." in 6th International Symposium on Visual Computing. (1 2010).
K. Streib and J. Davis "Extracting Pathlets From Weak Tracking Data." in IEEE Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance. (8 2010).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "Learning directed intention-driven activities using co-clustering." (11 2010).
K. Sankaranarayanan and J. Davis "Learning Directed Intention-driven Activities using Co-Clustering." in IEEE Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance. (8 2010).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "Attention-based target localization using multiple instance learning." (12 2010).
Nedrich, M.; Davis, J.W. "Learning Scene Entries and Exits Using Coherent Motion Regions." in 6th International Symposium on Visual Computing. (1 2010).
K. Streib and J. Davis "Exploiting Multiple Cameras for Environmental Pathlets." in International Symposium on Visual Computing. (11 2010).
Morison, A.M.; Woods, D.D.; Davis, J.W. "How panoramic visualization can support human supervision of intelligent surveillance." (12 2009).
A. Morison, D. Woods, and J. Davis "How Panoramic Visualization can Support Human Supervision of Intelligent Surveillance." in Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. (10 2009).
Tyagi, A.; Davis, J.W.; IEEE, "A recursive filter for linear systems on Riemannian manifolds." (1 2008).
Tyagi, A.; Davis, J.W. "A context-based tracker switching framework." in IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing. (1 2008).
Tyagi, A.; Davis, J.W.; IEEE, "A context-based tracker switching framework." (1 2008).
Keck, M.; Davis, J.W. "3D occlusion recovery using few cameras." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (1 2008).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "An efficient active camera model for video surveillance." in IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision. (1 2008).
Keck, M.; Davis, J.W. "3D occlusion recovery using few cameras." (9 2008).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W.; IEEE, "An efficient active camera model for video surveillance." (1 2008).
Keck, M.; Davis, J.W.; IEEE, "3D occlusion recovery using few cameras." (1 2008).
K. Sankaranarayanan and J. Davis "An Efficient Active Camera Model for Video Surveillance." in IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision. (1 2008).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "A fast linear registration framework for multi-camera gis coordination." (12 2008).
M. Keck and J. Davis "3D Occlusion Recovery using Few Cameras." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (6 2008).
Tyagi, A.; Davis, J.W.; Potamianos, G. "Steepest descent for efficient covariance mracking." in IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing. (1 2008).
Tyagi, A.; Davis, J.W. "A recursive filter for linear systems on Riemannian manifolds." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (1 2008).
Tyagi, A.; Davis, J.W.; Potamianos, G.; IEEE, "Steepest descent for efficient covariance mracking." (1 2008).
A. Tyagi and J. Davis "A Context-Based Tracker Switching Framework." in IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing. (1 2008).
Tyagi, A.; Davis, J.W. "A context-based tracker switching framework." (9 2008).
A. Tyagi, J. Davis, and G. Potamianos "Steepest Descent for Efficient Covariance Tracking." in IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing. (1 2008).
K. Sankaranarayanan, and J. Davis "A Fast Linear Registration Framework for Multi-Camera GIS Coordination." in International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance. (9 2008).
A. Tyagi and J. Davis "A Recursive Filter For Linear Systems on Riemannian Manifolds." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (6 2008).
Tyagi, A.; Davis, J.W. "A recursive filter for linear systems on Riemannian manifolds." (9 2008).
Tyagi, A.; Davis, J.W.; Potamianos, G. "Steepest descent for efficient covariance tracking." (9 2008).
Sankaranarayanan, K.; Davis, J.W. "An efficient active camera model for video surveillance." (9 2008).
Sharma, V.; Davis, J.W. "Extraction of person silhouettes from surveillance imagery using MRFs." (8 2007).
A. Tyagi, G. Potamianos, J. Davis, and S. Chu "Fusion of Multiple Camera Views for Kernel-Based 3D Tracking." in IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing. (2 2007).
Sharma, V.; Davis, J.W. "Simultaneous detection and segmentation of pedestrians using top-down and bottom-up processing." (10 2007).
Sharma, V.; Davis, J.W. "Integrating appearance and motion cues for simultaneous detection and segmentation of pedestrians." (12 2007).
Tyagi, A.; Potamianos, G.; Davis, J.W.; Chu, S.M. "Fusion of multiple camera views for kernel-based 3D tracking." (8 2007).
Sharma, V.; Davis, J.W. "Simultaneous detection and segmentation of pedestrians using top-down and bottom-up processing." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (1 2007).
Tyagi, A.; Keck, M.; Davis, J.W.; Potamianos, G. "Kernel-based 3D tracking." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (1 2007).
V. Sharma and J. Davis "Simultaneous Detection and Segmentation of Pedestrians using Top-down and Bottom-up Processing." in IEEE International Workshop on Visual Surveillance. (6 2007).
Davis, J.W.; Morison, A.M.; Woods, D.D. "Building adaptive camera models for video surveillance." (8 2007).
Tyagi, A.; Keck, M.; Davis, J.W.; Potamianos, G. "Kernel-based 3D tracking." (10 2007).
V. Sharma and J. Davis "Integrating Appearance and Motion Cues for Simultaneous Detection and Segmentation of Pedestrians." in IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. (10 2007).
V. Sharma, J. Davis, and A. Tyagi "Extraction of Person Silhouettes from Surveillance Imagery using MRFs." in IEEE Workshop on Application of Computer Vision. (2 2007).
Sharma, V.; Davis, J.W.; IEEE, "Simultaneous detection and segmentation of pedestrians using top-down and bottom-up processing." (1 2007).
A. Tyagi, M. Keck, J. Davis, and G. Potamianos "Kernel-Based 3D Tracking." in IEEE International Workshop on Visual Surveillance. (6 2007).
Sharma, V.; Davis, J.W. "Integrating appearance and motion cues for simultaneous detection and segmentation of pedestrians." in 11th IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. (1 2007).
Tyagi, A.; Keck, M.; Davis, J.W.; Potamianos, G. et al. "Kernel-based 3D tracking." (1 2007).
Sharma, V.; Davis, J.W.; IEEE, "Integrating appearance and motion cues for simultaneous detection and segmentation of pedestrians." (1 2007).
J. Davis, A. Morison, and D. Woods "Building Adaptive Camera Models for Video Surveillance." in IEEE Workshop on Application of Computer Vision. (2 2007).
V. Sharma and J. Davis "Feature-level Fusion for Object Segmentation using Mutual Information." in IEEE International Workshop on Object Tracking and Classification Beyond the Visible Spectrum. (6 2006).
Gao, H.; Davis, J.W. "Sampling representative examples for dimensionality reduction and recognition - Bootstrap bumping LDA." in 9th European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV 2006). (1 2006).
Tyagi, A.; Davis, J.W.; Keck, M. "Multiview fusion for canonical view generation based on homography constraints." (12 2006).
Y. Chen, R. Parent, R. Machiraju, and J. Davis "Human Activity Recognition for Synthesis." in IEEE Workshop on Learning, Representation, and Context for Human Sensing in Video. (6 2006).
Keck, M.A.; Davis, J.W.; Tyagi, A. "Tracking mean shift clustered point clouds for 3D surveillance." (12 2006).
Gao, H.; Davis, J.W.; Bischof, H. "Sampling representative examples for dimensionality reduction and recognition - Bootstrap bumping LDA." (1 2006).
M. Keck, J. Davis, and A. Tyagi "Tracking Mean Shift Clustered Point Clouds for 3D Surveillance." in ACM Multimedia Workshop on Video Surveillance and Sensor Networks. (10 2006).
A. Tyagi, J. Davis, and M. Keck "Multiview Fusion for Canonical View Generation based on Homography Constraints." in ACM Multimedia Workshop on Video Surveillance and Sensor Networks. (10 2006).
Gao, H.; Davis, J.W. "Sampling representative examples for dimensionality reduction and recognition - Bootstrap bumping LDA." (7 2006).
H. Gao and J. Davis "Sampling Representative Examples for Dimensionality Reduction and Recognition – Bootstrap Bumping LDA." in European Conference on Computer Vision. (5 2006).
Woods, D.; McNee, S.; Davis, J.W.; Morison, A. et al. "Event template hierarchies as means for human-automation collaboration in security surveillance." (12 2005).
J. Davis and M. Keck "A Two-Stage Template Approach to Person Detection in Thermal Imagery." in IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision. (1 2005).
D. Woods, S. McNee, J. Davis, A. Morison, P. Maughan, and K. Christoffersen "Event Template Hierarchies as Means for Human-Automation Collaboration in Surveillance." in Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. (9 2005).
Davis, J.; Keck, M. "A Two-Stage Template Approach to Person Detection in Thermal Imagery." in IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision. (1 2005).
J. Davis and M. Keck "Modeling Behavior Trends and Detecting Abnormal Events using Seasonal Kalman Filters." in BMVC Workshop on Human Activity Recognition and Modelling. (9 2005).
J. Davis and V. Sharma "Fusion-based Background-Subtraction using Contour Saliency." in IEEE International Workshop on Object Tracking and Classification Beyond the Visible Spectrum. (6 2005).
Davis, J.W. "Sequential reliable-inference for rapid detection of human actions." (1 2004).
J. Davis "Sequential Reliable-Inference for Rapid Detection of Human Actions." in IEEE Workshop on Detection and Recognition of Events in Video. (7 2004).
Davis, J.; Sharma, V. "Robust Detection of People in Thermal Imagery." in International Conference on Pattern Recognition. (8 2004).
J. Davis and V. Sharma "Robust Background-Subtraction for Person Detection in Thermal Imagery." in IEEE International Workshop on Object Tracking and Classification Beyond the Visible Spectrum. (7 2004).
Davis, J.W.; Gao, H. "Gender recognition from walking movements using adaptive three-mode PCA." (1 2004).
J. Davis and H. Gao "Gender Recognition From Walking Movements using Adaptive Three-Mode PCA." in IEEE Workshop on Articulated and Nonrigid Motion. (6 2004).
J. Davis and V. Sharma "Robust Detection of People in Thermal Imagery." in International Conference on Pattern Recognition. (8 2004).
Davis, J.W.; Sharma, V. "Robust background-subtraction for person detection in Thermal Imagery." (1 2004).
J. Davis and A. Tyagi "A Reliable-Inference Framework for Recognition of Human Actions." in IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance. (7 2003).
Davis, J.W.; Gao, H. "Recognizing human action efforts: An adaptive three-mode PCA framework." (12 2003).
J. Davis and H. Gao "Recognizing Human Action Efforts: An Adaptive Three-Mode PCA Framework." in IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. (10 2003).
Davis, J.W.; Gao, H. "Recognizing human action efforts: An adaptive three-mode PCA framework." in 9th IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. (1 2003).
Davis, J.W.; Gao, H.; SOCIETY, I.C.; SOCIETY, I.C. "Recognizing human action efforts: An adaptive three-mode PCA framework." (1 2003).
Davis, J.; Tyagi, A. "A Reliable-Inference Framework for Recognition of Human Actions." in IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance. (7 2003).
J. Davis, H. Gao, and V. Kannappan "A Three-Mode Expressive Feature Model of Action Effort [Best Paper Award]." in IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing. (12 2002).
Davis, J.; Taylor, S. "Analysis and Recognition of Walking Movements." in IEEE International Conference on Pattern Recognition. (8 2002).
Bradski, G.R.; Davis, J.W. "Motion segmentation and pose recognition with motion history gradients." (12 2002).
Bradski, G.R.; Davis, J.W. "Motion segmentation and pose recognition with motion history gradients." (7 2002).
J. Davis and S. Taylor "Analysis and Recognition of Walking Movements." in IEEE International Conference on Pattern Recognition. (8 2002).
J. Davis "Representing and Recognizing Human Motion: From Motion Templates to Movement Categories." in Digital Human Modeling Workshop, International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. (10 2001).
J. Davis "Hierarchical Motion History Images for Recognizing Human Motion." in IEEE Workshop on Detection and Recognition of Events in Video. (7 2001).
J. Davis and S. Vaks "A Perceptual User Interface for Recognizing Head Gesture Acknowledgements." in ACM Workshop on Perceptual User Interfaces. (11 2001).
J. Davis "Visual Categorization of Children and Adult Walking Styles." in International Conference on Audio- and Video-based Biometric Person Authentication. (6 2001).
Davis, J.W. "Visual categorization of children and adult walking styles." (12 2001).
Davis, J.W. "Hierarchical motion history images for recognizing human motion." in IEEE Workshop on Detection and Recognition of Events in Video (EVENT 2001). (1 2001).
Davis, J.W. "Visual categorization of children and adult walking styles." (1 2001).
Davis, J.W.; SOCIETY, I.C.; SOCIETY, I.C. "Hierarchical motion history images for recognizing human motion." (1 2001).
Davis, J.W. "Visual categorization of children and adult walking styles." in 3rd International Conference on Audio- and Video- Based Biometric Person Authentication. (1 2001).
Davis, J.W.; Vaks, S. "A perceptual user interface for recognizing head gesture acknowledgements." (11 2001).
Davis, J.W. "Hierarchical motion history images for recognizing human motion." (1 2001).
J. Davis, A. Bobick, and W. Richards "Categorical Representation and Recognition of Oscillatory Motion Patterns." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (6 2000).
G. Bradski and J. Davis "Motion Segmentation and Pose Recognition with Motion History Gradients." in IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision. (12 2000).
J. Davis and G. Bradski "Real-Time Motion Template Gradients Using Intel CVLib." in IEEE Workshop on Frame-Rate Computer Vision. (9 1999).
Davis, J.W.; Bobick, A.F. "A robust human-silhouette extraction technique for interactive virtual environments." (1 1998).
J. Davis and A. Bobick "A Robust Human-Silhouette Extraction Technique for Interactive Virtual Environments." in International Workshop on Modeling and Motion Capture Techniques for Virtual Environments. (11 1998).
Davis, J.W.; Bobick, A.F. "A robust human-silhouette extraction technique for interactive virtual environments." in International Workshop on Modelling and Motion Capture Techniques for Virtual Environments. (1 1998).
C. Wren, F. Sparacino, A. Azarbayejani, T. Darrell , J. Davis, T. Starner, A. Kotani, C. Chao, M. Hlavac, K. Russell, A. Bobick, and A. Pentland "Perceptive Spaces for Performance and Entertainment." in ATR Workshop on Virtual Communication Environments. (4 1998).
J. Davis and A. Bobick "Virtual PAT: A Virtual Personal Aerobics Trainer." in Workshop on Perceptual User Interfaces. (11 1998).
A. Bobick, S. Intille, J. Davis, F. Baird, C. Pinhanez, L. Campbell, Y. Ivanov, A. Schutte, and A. Wilson "Design Decisions for Interactive Environments: Evaluating the KidsRoom Application using a Deep Perceptual Interface." in AAAI Symposium on Intelligent Environments. (3 1998).
Intille, S.S.; Davis, J.W.; Bobick, A.F.; SOC, I.C. "Real-time closed-world tracking." (1 1997).
A. Bobick, J. Davis, and S. Intille "The KidsRoom: An Example Application using a Deep Perceptual Interface." in Workshop on Perceptual User Interfaces. (10 1997).
J. Davis and A. Bobick "The Representation and Recognition of Action using Temporal Templates." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (6 1997).
Davis, J.W.; Bobick, A.F.; SOC, I.C. "The representation and recognition of human movement using temporal templates." (1 1997).
Intille, S.S.; Davis, J.W.; Bobick, A.F. "Real-time closed-world tracking." in 1997 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 97). (1 1997).
Davis, J.W.; Bobick, A.F. "The representation and recognition of human movement using temporal templates." in 1997 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 97). (1 1997).
S. Intille, J. Davis, and A. Bobick "Real-Time Closed-World Tracking." in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. (6 1997).
A. Bobick and J. Davis "An Appearance-Based Representation of Action." in IEEE International Conference on Pattern Recognition. (8 1996).
A. Bobick and J. Davis "Real-Time Recognition of Activity Using Temporal Templates." in IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision. (12 1996).
J. Davis and M. Shah "Determining 3-D Hand Motion." in IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers. (10 1994).
J. Davis and M. Shah "Recognizing Hand Gestures." in European Conference on Computer Vision. (5 1994).
Davis, J.. "Polarity Maximizer software plug-in."

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 stands as perhaps the most important entitlement reform in the nation’s history, chiefly because of its core requirement that able-bodied parents eligible for welfare assistance work, search for work, or train to work. Its centerpiece (and the most controversial provision at the time of its passage) is Section 407, “Mandatory Work Requirements,” which sets out an absolute requirement that state welfare programs achieve specific work-participation rates or forfeit federal funding.
Even after President Bill Clinton twice vetoed welfare reform legislation, Congress refused to budge on the core requirement of Section 407, insisting on strong work incentives to discourage abuses and to help lift recipients off of welfare and out of poverty. And it worked: Employment surged, caseloads dropped, and child poverty plummeted.
Under the guise of providing states greater “flexibility” in operating their welfare programs, the Obama Administration now claims the authority to weaken or waive the work requirements that are at the heart of welfare reform. In particular, it argues that Section 1115, which provides waiver authority for states to establish demonstration projects, authorizes it to approve state programs that “test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407,” including different “definitions of work activities and engagement.” In this way, states could evade Section 407’s work-participation requirement without sacrificing federal funding.
The Obama Administration’s argument that the authority to waive a separate section that merely mentions Section 407 places all work requirements at the Administration’s mercy simply beggars belief.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (1996 Act) replaced the failed Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which perversely encouraged dependence on government by offering states additional federal funding as their welfare rolls grew. The new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), offered funding to states with programs that met certain conditions. Foremost among these conditions were that states require able-bodied welfare recipients to engage in “work activities” and that the state achieve specified work-participation rates for welfare recipients.
Section 407 lays out these requirements in clear, imperative language. The statute contains two tables specifying minimum work-participation rates, one for all families receiving assistance and one for two-parent families receiving assistance. A state receiving TANF funding “shall achieve the minimum participation rate” specified in each table for each applicable year. For 2002 and thereafter, the applicable participation rates are 50 percent for all families and 90 percent for two-parent families. To prevent gaming, the statute even contains a provision specifying the precise method of calculating participation rates.
The work requirements for welfare recipients are equally clear and equally mandatory. The statute provides that “if an individual in a family receiving assistance…refuses to engage in work…, the State shall” either “reduce the amount of assistance” to that family on at least a pro rata basis or simply “terminate such assistance.” States can decline to impose a penalty for violations only in three circumstances: for “good cause,” for exceptions established by the state and approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and for a single parent where child care is otherwise completely unavailable. Such exceptions are not counted, however, in calculating states’ work-participation rates.
It is apparent from the face of Section 407 that Congress was concerned that HHS, which administers TANF, or states would attempt to evade the law’s strict work requirements. To prevent backsliding, it legislated in great detail, defining terms with specificity and setting hard caps on exemptions.
For example, rather than leave the matter to administrative discretion, Section 407 enumerates 12 “work activities”—including subsidized and unsubsidized employment, on-the-job training, and vocational training—that satisfy the state and individual work requirements. It specified the number of hours per week that family members would be required to work to be considered “participating in work activities.” It put a hard cap of 30 percent on the proportion of a state’s welfare recipients who could participate in educational activities and still be counted as engaged in work. Finally, the law requires HHS to oversee and verify states’ compliance with all work requirements.
In addition to the penalties for individuals refusing to work, the 1996 Act established penalties for states that did not comply with Section 407. States that failed to cut off or reduce assistance to such individuals would lose between 1 percent and 5 percent of their TANF funding in the subsequent year, amounting to millions of dollars. And states that failed to meet the minimum work-participation rates specified in Section 407 would lose 5 percent of their federal funding in the subsequent year, increased by 2 percentage points for each year of noncompliance, up to 21 percent. In this way, Congress gave the work requirements real teeth.
On July 12, 2012, HHS issued an “Information Memorandum” to state welfare plan administrators regarding “waiver and expenditure authority under Section 1115.” Despite the prosaic title, the memorandum signaled a major shift in policy for HHS regarding the mandatory nature of the work requirements contained in Section 407.
Section 1115 authorizes waivers concerning section 402…. While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.
That same day, Representative Dave Camp (R–MI), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Senator Orrin Hatch (R–UT), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting that she provide “a detailed explanation of your Department’s legal reasoning” underlying its assertion of authority to waive Section 407’s requirements.
The Secretary responded a week later with a three-page letter explaining that “Republican and Democratic Governors have requested more flexibility in welfare reform” and, in particular, that governors of both parties had supported legislation in 2005 to broaden waiver authority.
Accompanying Secretary Sebelius’s letter was a one-page attachment setting forth the Administration’s “Legal Basis for Utilizing Waiver Authority in TANF.” This document recapitulates the legal basis offered in HHS’s earlier Information Memorandum—i.e., that because Section 1115 authorizes waiver of requirements in Section 402 and Section 402 mentions Section 407, Section 1115 authorizes HHS to waive Section 407.
HHS, the Secretary’s letter further explains, “has long interpreted its authority to waive state plan requirements under Section 1115 to extend to requirements set forth in other statutory provisions that are referenced in the provisions governing state plans.” As an example, it mentions Wisconsin’s “Work Not Welfare” program, which included a waiver of rules related to the distribution of child support contained in Section 454, despite the fact that Section 1115 only references the child support state plan provisions of Section 457 (which, in turn, references Section 454). Even if there were doubt as to this authority, the document continues, Congress has ratified HHS’s more expansive interpretation by declining to amend it.
By its own terms, Section 407 establishes a set of obligations on states accepting TANF funding from the federal government. It expressly conditions their entitlement to funds on satisfying specified “work requirements.” It contains no exception to its reach and no provision giving the Secretary of HHS authority to relax or waive its requirements. There can be no question but that, by default, it applies to all states accepting TANF funding. HHS does not dispute this point, nor could it.
The questions that HHS’s actions raise, however, are (1) whether the Secretary possesses authority from some other statutory source to excuse states accepting TANF funding from full compliance with Section 407’s requirements and (2), if so, whether that authority is limited by any other provision. As to the first question, HHS points to Section 1115’s waiver authority, but as is discussed below, that provision cannot be read to reach Section 407. As to the second, even if Section 1115 were found, standing alone, to authorize the waiver of Section 407’s requirements, it may still be trumped by the more specific language of Section 415, which arguably precludes the waiver of work requirements and, in any case, confirms Congress’s intention that Section 407’s work requirements not be subject to waiver.
This provision, HHS argues, allows it to waive Section 407’s work requirements. But that contention can be rejected on three grounds.
The first and simplest is the negative-implication canon, or expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others). Section 1115 lists seven provisions the requirements of which the Secretary may waive. Section 407 is not among them. Ergo, the Secretary has no authority to waive its requirements. The enumeration of statutory provisions subject to waiver manifests congressional intent to limit the Secretary’s discretion, not to allow her free rein over the entirety of Title 42.
Second, the Secretary ignores the actual language used in Sections 402 and 407. Section 407 clearly establishes freestanding requirements for state programs receiving TANF funding and does not depend on Section 402 for its effectiveness. Its text contains commands for states participating in TANF: They “shall achieve the minimum participation rate” and “shall reduce the amount of assistance otherwise payable” to a family whose members refuse to work. These provisions establish independent obligations on states participating in TANF and are effective irrespective of any requirement of Section 402. In other words, even had Section 402 omitted any reference to Section 407, they would still continue in force; a state would merely be relieved from “outlin[ing]” in a “written document…how the State intends to satisfy” any portion of Section 402.
This interpretation is confirmed by Section 402’s limited reference to Section 407’s requirements. As described above, Section 407 imposes two separate types of requirements for states: (1) that they attain certain “minimum participation rate[s]” and (2) that they impose penalties on any recipient of assistance (with certain exceptions) who “refuses to engage in work.” But Section 402 refers only to the latter requirement; it does not so much as mention the minimum participation requirements. Accordingly, those requirements cannot possibly be among the “requirement[s] of section ” that Section 1115 authorizes the Secretary to waive. And there is no basis in the text of Section 407 to distinguish between the two types of work requirements; both are specified in the same imperative language as freestanding commands on participating states.
Third, the Administration’s legal argument ignores the distinction between Section 402, which is concerned with states’ discretion in carrying out their TANF programs, and other provisions (including Section 407) intended to deprive them of any discretion. Section 402 lays out the minimum contents for a state plan that is “eligible” for funding, requires that the plan be submitted in a “written document,” and requires the state to certify that it will carry out the provisions of the written plan. This mechanism allows the states discretion as to how they structure and operate their TANF programs within the parameters allowed by the statute. That discretion may be broadened by Section 1115 waivers that relax Section 402 requirements.
But the statutory structure reflects that Congress did not intend to give the states unlimited discretion with respect to all aspects of their programs and, in particular, with respect to work requirements. This is why minimum work-participation requirements are nowhere mentioned in Section 402; Section 407 affords states zero discretion as to whether they will meet these requirements, such that there is no reason for the states to “outline” their preferred policy choices. They have no choice, other than declining to seek TANF funds. Conversely, because states have some discretion as to how they intend to implement the individual work requirements for welfare recipients, they are required to outline how they intend to exercise that discretion. There is no basis in Section 402 to conclude, however, that their failure to do so—for example, if the outlining requirement is waived—somehow absolves them from carrying out the individual work requirements altogether.
To the contrary, Congress carefully and deliberately distinguished between areas where the states would have some discretion (and where waivers might be appropriate) and those where they would not (and waivers would not lie). This is apparent in comparing the broad and discretion-conferring language of Section 402 with the absolute commands of Section 408, which specifies nonwaivable “prohibitions” and “requirements,” and of Section 409, which specifies in comprehensive fashion penalties for states’ violation of TANF requirements. Section 408 contains a number of bedrock requirements for all state TANF programs, such as prohibiting assistance to families without minor children. Although containing three separate penalties for violations of Section 407’s work requirements, Section 409 does not impose penalties for any “requirement” of Section 402. Instead, it establishes a number of additional requirements for state TANF programs. As a result, states are not penalized for legitimate exercise of their discretion under Section 402, but they are for violations of the requirements of Sections 407, 408, and 409.
The history of Section 402 also shows that Congress intended this distinction. Prior to the 1996 Act, Section 402 contained all requirements for state welfare programs while providing the states substantially less flexibility in the structure and operation of their programs. It opened with the command that “[a] State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must…” and proceeded through the subsequent nine pages of the official U.S. Code to enumerate in excruciating detail every requirement for state programs, all of them mandatory. Accordingly, Section 1115 (which did then, as now, apply to Section 402) permitted the Secretary to waive any requirement whatsoever respecting states’ welfare programs.
TANF, however, scrapped the prior approach, replacing the specific strictures of Section 402 with general requirements that afforded states substantial flexibility in the design of their programs, over which the Secretary retained waiver authority to provide still-further flexibility. But where Congress sought to preclude state flexibility, as with work requirements, it used mandatory language and placed those requirements in separate provisions not subject to Section 1115.
Notably, the sole example the Administration provides in support of its argument that it may waive requirements outside of those provisions enumerated in Section 1115 concerns a child and spousal support program structured in the same way as the old Section 402—that is, before it was amended by the 1996 Act. Section 454, which is subject to Section 1115 waiver, establishes requirements for state child and spousal support programs. Among other things, “[a] State plan for child and spousal support must…provide that amounts collected as support shall be distributed as provided in section ,” which in turn provides rules for the distribution of support payments.
Given this wording and structure, it is at least arguable that the distribution rules, although in another section, are incorporated by reference and that HHS may therefore waive them; but the present-day Section 602 is materially different, setting out only a “written document” requirement, and does not incorporate requirements from other sections. That HHS previously waived child and spousal support distribution rules therefore provides no support at all for its broad assertion of waiver authority with respect to TANF. Moreover, there is in any case a strong argument that HHS’s waiver of spousal and child support distribution rules was itself unlawful. That HHS may have acted unlawfully in the past, in a low-profile waiver that did not attract legal challenge, does not sanction its latest overreaching.
Finally, the structure of the TANF statute also cuts against the Administration’s argument that Congress ratified HHS’s broad assertions of waiver authority; to the contrary, Congress acted to pick and choose the requirements to which it would apply. The Administration’s interpretation, however, would render the distinctions drawn by Congress in the text and structure of the 1996 Act entirely ineffective, as if it had merely amended Section 402 and left it at that. Of course, Congress did no such thing, and a court would not so casually deprive amendments made by Congress of any meaning.
Indeed, when a previous Secretary raised a similar argument concerning his Section 1115 authority, the court rejected it in favor of “[t]he plain language of the statute.” There is little doubt that a court would do the same in this instance, perhaps without any need to wade into the intricate details of the TANF program.
Section 415’s Limitation on the Secretary’s Waiver Authority. That the Secretary lacks authority to waive Section 407’s work requirements is confirmed by another provision of the 1996 Act: Section 415, which provides additional limitations on the Secretary’s waiver power with respect to work requirements. Section 415 is obtusely written, and the interplay of its subsections may be subject to differing interpretations with regard to the current dispute, but all possible interpretations cut strongly against the Secretary’s claim that she has authority to waive the work requirements of Section 407.
First, for waivers already in effect, states may continue to receive funding without complying with the Act’s new requirements, although only until the expiration of the waiver, without regard to any extensions.
Second, for waivers submitted prior to the Act’s passage (August 22, 1996) and approved before TANF’s full effectiveness (July 1, 1997), states may continue to receive funding without complying with the Act’s new requirements so long as the waiver does not increase federal costs.
But the Administration’s interpretation of Section 415, even if accepted by a court, is actually fatal to its position regarding Section 1115 authority. It concedes, as it must, that Congress allowed states obtaining interim-period waivers to ignore every single new requirement of the 1996 Act except for the work requirements contained in Section 407, which states were required to implement immediately upon their becoming effective. This is in tension, to say the least, with the Administration’s more fundamental argument that those same states could, under subsequent Section 1115 waivers granted after the 1996 Act went into effect, abandon those same work requirements that Congress specifically required that they implement even under interim-period waiver plans. It makes no sense to suggest that Congress was so concerned about ensuring that the work requirements were not waived that it inserted a stop-gap provision to prevent waiver during the interim period following the passage but then authorized HHS to waive those requirements at will at any time thereafter.
The absurdity of this argument demonstrates its fallacy: If the Administration’s interpretation of Section 415 is correct, then its interpretation of Section 1115 to allow it to waive work requirements is surely wrong.
Late last year, President Barack Obama stated, “We’re going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress.” He has followed through on that promise, weakening legal requirements enacted by Congress regarding immigration, education funding, and now welfare. But the President’s power to act unilaterally in domestic affairs is limited both by his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and by the laws that Congress passes.
In this instance, the President has chosen to disregard that obligation. There is absolutely no indication, in the text of the 1996 Act or otherwise, that Congress intended to allow the waiver of that Act’s centerpiece provision: its work requirements. To the contrary, Congress placed them in a stand-alone section not subject to waiver authority, gave them independent force and effect, and even precluded their waiver for state welfare plans approved during the interim period following passage of the 1996 Act.
To waive those requirements is a violation of the law, a violation of the Constitution’s vesting of legislative power in the Congress, and a violation of the President’s fundamental duty to faithfully carry out the laws.
—Andrew M. Grossman is a Visiting Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
 See generally Robert Rector and Patrick F. Fagan, PhD, The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1620, February 6, 2003, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/02/the-continuing-good-news.
Robert Rector, Why Congress Must Reform Welfare, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1063, December 4, 1995, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/12/bg1063nbsp-why-congress-must-reform-welfare.
42 U.S.C. §§ 607(a)(1), (a)(2).
42 U.S.C. §§ 607(e)(1), (e)(2).
42 U.S.C. §§ 607(c)(1)(A), (1)(B).
42 U.S.C. § 607(i); see also 42 U.S.C. § 609(a)(15) (imposing penalties for states’ failure to comply with work-participation verification procedures).
Memorandum from Earl Johnson, Director, Office of Family Assistance, to States administering the TANF Program and other interested parties (July 12, 2012), at 1, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html.
Letter from Dave Camp, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, and Orrin Hatch, Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee, to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (July 12, 2012) (hereinafter “Camp/Hatch Letter”), available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/7.12.12_TANF_work_requirements_letter.pdf.
Letter from Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, to Orrin Hatch, Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee (July 18, 2012) (hereinafter “Sebelius Letter”), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/Sen-Hatch-TANF-7-18-.pdf.
42 U.S.C. §§ 602(a), 603(a)(1)(A).
 See, e.g., United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 514 (1974).
42 U.S.C. §§ 607(a)(1), (a)(2), (e)(1).
 Compare 42 U.S.C. §§ 607(a)(1), (a)(2) with 42 U.S.C. § 607(e)(1).
 See 42 U.S.C. § 607(a)(1) (work requirements apply only to “a State to which a grant is made).
In particular, 42 U.S.C. 607(e)(1) grants states some discretion to establish “exceptions” to the recipient work requirement, although they remain subject to the minimum work-participation rate requirements.
42 U.S.C. § 609(a)(3)(A), (a)(14)(A), (a)(15)(A).
42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (1994) (emphasis added).
42 U.S.C. §§ 654, 657.
 Cf. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944 (1983) (“By the same token, the fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it….”).
 United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 495–96 (1997) (rejecting ratification argument where Congress reenacted statute).
 Portland Adventist Medical Center v. Thompson, 399 F.3d 1091, 1099 & n.9 (9th Cir. 2005).
Sebelius Letter, supra n.21, at 4.
 Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984); but see Christensen v. Harris County, 529 US 576, 587 (2000) (“[I]nterpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law—do not warrant Chevron-style deference.”). Of course, deference is unavailable where the standard canons of statutory interpretation definitively resolve the question of a statute’s meaning. New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 18 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (explaining that the court must first consider “whether, based on the Act’s language, legislative history, structure, and purpose, Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue”).
Remarks by the President on College Affordability, Oct. 26, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/26/remarks-president-college-affordability.
Matthew Spalding, PhD, An Imperial Immigration Policy, June 19, 2012, http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/19/imperial-immigration-policy/.
Lindsey M. Burke, States Must Reject National Education Standards While There Is Still Time, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2680, April 16, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/states-must-reject-national-education-standards-while-there-is-still-time.