text:
Taking the pulse of the gubernatorial candidates’ views on health care | HartfordBusiness.com . New to the site? Click here to register.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Stefanowski.
The three leading gubernatorial candidates all agree that government must protect insurance coverage for pre-existing medical conditions — a key provision of the Affordable Care Act — and that the opioid epidemic is a major public health crisis that must continue to be a top priority.
They also all say that more needs to be done to bring down the costs of expensive prescription drugs and support Medicaid expansion — an issue being fought in elections outside of Connecticut — which extended coverage to low-income adults who do not have minor children and were not disabled.
But that's essentially where the agreement ends.
The candidates diverge when asked their opinions on whether the state should have work requirements for certain Medicaid recipients or impose an individual mandate penalty, a question for state officials after the ACA tax penalty was eliminated in the federal tax bill last December.
While health care isn't carrying the same amount of weight in Connecticut as it is in elections in other parts of the U.S., the state's next governor could influence some important issues related to health care policy. For instance, in February, Texas and a coalition of red states filed a lawsuit challenging the ACA. A few months later, Connecticut and a coalition of Democratic states led by California intervened in that lawsuit to defend the ACA.
The CT Mirror sat down with Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and petitioning candidate Oz Griebel to discuss their positions on health care. This story includes comments made during those interviews, as well as official statements made by the campaign and information included in campaign literature.
Republican nominee Bob Stefanowski declined repeated requests for an interview in-person or over the phone. His campaign answered questions by email through his communication director, Kendall Marr.
Here's where the candidates stand on some of the biggest issues in health care today.
In June, state officials filed court documents in defense of the ACA, arguing that the federal law has brought the state billions of dollars in new resources, helping it expand health care coverage and establish new health programs.
In September, a federal judge in Texas heard arguments about the case.
Lamont was the only candidate to take a stance on the case. His campaign said in a statement that he supports the lawsuit and would defend Connecticut's position in court.
Both Stefanowski and Griebel said they would review the suit and confer with the new attorney general.
The three candidates have differing views on Medicaid work requirements, which have been approved in a few states, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
In January, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) sent a letter to states, saying that it would, for the first time, allow them to craft programs requiring Medicaid recipients to prove they are working, training for a job, or volunteering in their communities before they receive benefits.
In Connecticut, a bill aimed at imposing work requirements for some Medicaid recipients failed to make it out of committee during the last legislative session. The state Department of Social Services opposed the bill.
The state can't simply impose work requirements on its own, however. States must apply for a federal waiver before they can require adult, able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work or perform community service.
Stefanowski, alone of the three candidates, supports work requirements.
"I support efforts to encourage able-bodied individuals without dependents, and those who are not disabled or seniors, to engage in work or volunteer work in order to receive Medicaid benefits," he said.
"Health care is a basic right … and the idea that you would make a prerequisite is the wrong way to go. And it's not only wrong for that person, as I've said before, it's not smart for the state of Connecticut," he said at a health care panel discussion at the Yale Child Study Center in New Haven in October.
Griebel took the middle road, saying the idea should be examined. "It's not to penalize somebody for Medicaid. Is there an opportunity if someone's not working today, is there an opportunity to get them back into the economy in a way that gives them dignity, gives them an opportunity to learn skills?"
The federal tax bill passed last December eliminated the tax penalty for not complying with the individual mandate established under the ACA, which required most Americans to have a basic level of health care coverage. The new law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2019.
Two bills that would have established an individual mandate in Connecticut failed to make it out of committee during the last legislative session.
Griebel supports an individual mandate in Connecticut.
"I'm a believer people should be taxed if they don't get coverage," Griebel said. "The devil's always in the details on how does an individual mandate work, but conceptually the idea that we're all responsible for having coverage in one form or another that's adequate, I think is an important responsibility we have for one another."
"I do not believe people should be forced to purchase something that they don't want. Young adults who are healthy should not be forced to pay expensive insurance on the mandate," he said in an email.
According to Lamont's campaign, he has supported the individual mandate in the past, "but he is concerned about adding an individual mandate to Connecticut law at a time when the Trump Administration is working to sabotage the Affordable Care Act."
Under current law, health insurance companies can't refuse coverage or charge more because someone has a pre-existing condition, a provision of the ACA. The Texas-led lawsuit challenges the legality of this provision, among other aspects of the ACA.
All three candidates support coverage for pre-existing conditions.
"First thing I want do is give people confidence that we're going to fight for the basic protections under Obamacare," including pre-existing conditions, said Lamont, when asked what would be one of the first actions related to health care that he'd take if elected governor.
In a statement, Stefanowski said, "This is protected by state statute and I would not seek to change that."
Griebel said this protection is "embedded in making sure that we're keeping people as healthy as we can, and in our entire goal of providing the most accessible, affordable, highest quality health care to every state resident."
Fentanyl continued to drive the state's drug epidemic to new, deadly heights in 2017. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner said accidental overdose deaths climbed over 1,000 for the first time in 2017.
Overall drug deaths in the state have nearly tripled over six years, from 357 in 2012 to 1,038 in 2017.
State officials have projected accidental drug deaths will remain virtually flat this year, marking the first break in the momentum of an epidemic that has shown double-digit increases year after year since at least 2012.
Lamont released a health care policy plan in October. In that, he said he will appoint a cabinet-level opioid czar to coordinate the state's multi-agency response, increase access to naloxone, encourage medication-assisted treatment, and continue the work of the Connecticut Opioid Response (CORE) Initiative. CORE is Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's three-year strategy to prevent addiction and overdoses.
Naloxone, commonly known as the brand name Narcan, is a medication designed to rapidly reverse opioid overdose. Medication-assisted treatment combines behavioral therapy and prescription medications to treat substance use disorders. It is seen by many as the most effective way to fight the opioid epidemic.
Stefanowski said he would "continue funding for mental health and substance abuse programs.
"I would meet quarterly with our department of public health, the department of mental health and addiction services, the medical community and law enforcement to develop a comprehensive plan of attack to face this problem head on," he added.
Griebel recently released a plan to address the opioid epidemic, which includes the formation of a task force comprising state agency leaders, first responders, municipal officials and private providers; the expansion of data sharing between state agencies and clinical, administrative and research databases; and making naloxone available over the counter without a prescription to make it more widely available.
All three gubernatorial candidates say they will not seek to limit access to reproductive choice.
With the confirmation in October of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, abortion is once again in the political spotlight. In the near future, the Supreme Court could hear a case that could challenge existing federal protections of abortion rights under Roe v. Wade, as well as other subsequent Supreme Court rulings, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
During his Senate confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh deflected questions about whether he'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, saying it was "settled law." But as a White House staffer in 2003, Kavanaugh wrote in an email that Roe v. Wade was not "settled law of the land."
In Connecticut, the protections in Roe v. Wade were codified in state law in 1990. Therefore, even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, this state law would remain intact.
But some are worried those state protections are at risk, depending on who is elected governor and the future makeup of the General Assembly.
Stefanowski's campaign used similar language to Kavanaugh in a statement about the GOP nominee's views on Roe v. Wade.
"Bob believes that Roe is settled law. He would not seek to limit access to reproductive choice if elected," said Marr in an email. "Connecticut state law has additional protections for reproductive choice that would continue to stand even if Roe were overturned federally."
Lamont and Griebel support Roe.
"Republicans will continue to try to overturn Roe v. Wade and strike down the Affordable Care Act," said Lamont in a statement. "Women – not the government – should have control over their own bodies and our state needs a leader who will make sure Connecticut is a state that upholds women's reproductive freedoms."
Griebel's administration, if elected, would "unequivocally uphold a women's right to choose … Abortion should be safe, legal and rare," according to the campaign's website.
The state began collecting the tax in 2012, pledging to redistribute the proceeds to the hospitals as a way of drawing down matching federal grants. That year the hospitals paid about $350 million in taxes and received about $400 million in state and federal funds.
But when the state began experiencing severe budget problems, it started returning less and less money to the hospitals, which caused considerable tension between the hospitals and the Malloy administration.
Last fall, the legislature approved a new taxing arrangement between the state and the hospitals.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, commonly known as CMS, approved a significant increase in the state's annual tax on hospitals — from roughly $556 million to $900 million in fiscal years 2018 and 2019.
In return, the state gave the hospitals $671 million through Medicaid payments, which was also approved by CMS, in fiscal year 2018, and will do the same in fiscal year 2019. This change cut the loss to hospitals from $438 million per year to $229 million per year, according to the Connecticut Hospital Association.
All three candidates said they would strive to work collaboratively with the hospitals.
"We had a deal with the hospitals … we didn't honor it and I cannot unwind all that in a year but I think we can do a better job of treating our hospitals more fairly and unwinding some of those costs over a period of time," Lamont said.
Stefanowski said the Malloy administration has imposed "huge tax increases on our critical hospitals. I have spoken with the hospital association about their concerns, and as governor, I would work with them on a solution that is best for both parties."
Griebel said part of the reason the tax exists is to generate more revenue for the state budget.
"But having the state pitted against the hospitals is not going to get us to the most accessible, affordable, highest quality health care. We'd have to sit down and work through the details," he said.

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


text:
Will Richmond Park ‘Sack Zac’?
On 25 October the Government announced that they would be supporting a third runway for Heathrow Airport. Following this announcement, Zac Goldsmith the MP for Richmond Park announced his resignation, triggering a by-election which will come to an conclusion on Thursday. Goldsmith was honouring a promise made during his first election campaign (when he defeated Liberal Democrat incumbent Susan Kramer in 2010) that he would resign his House of Commons seat were the Conservative Government to ever support a third runway, “no ifs, no buts”. Originally it seemed unlikely that Goldsmith would have to act upon this promise given that then Conservative leader David Cameron had said in 2009 that his future Government would not be supporting a third runway. However, when Cameron left his post in July the issue was back on the table, and Theresa May’s government approved the proposal for a new runway and terminal in October.
Goldsmith is standing again but this time as an Independent, and hoped to make the by-election solely about his opposition to the expansion of Heathrow — a stance supported by most of the constituency’s residents. His expectation was that he would be able to make a point about the expansion, and then get easily elected to Parliament once again without compromising his principles. Goldsmith has said that he would remain an independent for a “full term in Parliament”, but beyond that he has not ruled out rejoining the Conservatives.
However, in actual fact, the by-election has not been quite so simple for Goldsmith. Once the candidates were announced, it became apparent that all of the main candidates were against the expansion of Heathrow. In addition to Goldsmith himself, the Liberal Democrat candidate Sarah Olney is against expansion, as is the candidate for the Labour Party, Christian Wolmar. In addition, the Conservative Party ultimately declined to field a candidate against Goldsmith which has made his stance of standing against Government policy lose quite a lot of steam. With Goldsmith’s main rivals all agreeing with him on the issue of Heathrow, commentators (and voters) naturally looked for the issues which divided the candidates, with the most prominent of these being Brexit.
Goldsmith has long been an outspoken supporter of leaving the European Union, following on from the father James Goldsmith who founded and financed the Referendum Party in 1994. His opponents on the other hand were staunchly in favour of a Remain vote in June’s EU Referendum. As well as his opponents, his constitutents were also strongly in favour of remaining the the EU. London as a whole voted by 60–40 to remain in the EU, in Richmond Park the vote for remain was 69.3%. There is evidence that many of the voters in Richmond Park were concerned and angry about the Brexit stance of their otherwise popular local MP, and recent polling has reflected this. In late October, BMG research released polling where 25 percent of respondents identified Brexit as the most important issue in the upcoming by-election, compared t0 just 21 percent who identified Heathrow expansion as the most important issue. This suggests that Goldsmith has been outflanked somewhat, and the by-election has turned into a referendum on his stance on Brexit, as opposed to a ratification of his views on Heathrow.
As the holders of the Richmond Park parliamentary seat until 2010, it is reasonable to suggest the Liberal Democrat to be the closest challengers for this seat. Although, the Lib Dems were reduced to just eight House of Commons seat at the 2015 General Election, there have been recent signs of a resurgence in support with the Lib Dems attempting to court the votes of those who voted to remain in the EU by promising a second referendum, and pledging to vote against the triggering of Article 50 in Parliament. Nationwide I am not convinced that this is a good strategy for winning House of Commons seats, however in an area with such a high vote for Remain like Richmond Park there is a fairly decent chance that it will help the Lib Dems gain support. Similarly, in the by-election earlier this year for David Cameron’s old seat in Witney (another constituency which voted heavily in favour of remain) the Lib Dems experienced a surge in support (into second place), in part because the Conservative Party fielded a candidate who had campaigned in favour of a Leave vote. The Lib Dems are hoping that a similar strategy will help them here.
In their attempts to pigeonhole Goldsmith as a supporter of a ‘hard Brexit’ and defeat him this way, the Lib Dems have been inadvertently helped by UKIP. On 27 October, UKIP announced that they wouldn’t be fielding candidate in the by-election and instead chose to endorse Goldsmith — praising him for the stance on Brexit, among other things. As well reminding voters of Goldsmith’s support for Brexit, this perhaps also served to remind them of the divisive campaign that he waged against Sadiq Khan in the London Mayoral Election in May. The Lib Dems have used this endorsement to their advantage by printing imitation newspapers with Nigel Farage on the front page, and suggesting that he has personally endorsed Goldsmith. In an area where Farage is clearly not going to be the most popular guy around, this kind of thing will almost certainly have an affect. Clearly Goldsmith has recognised that his stance on Brexit is having an adverse affect on his campaign as he used a recent interview with The Independent to register his opposition to Theresa May challenging the Article 50 vote decision in the Supreme Court, and to make it clear that he supported a House of Commons vote on the triggering of Article 50.
Early signs suggest that making the campaign about Brexit has had an extremely negative affect on Goldsmith’s attempts to retain his seat, although having said this it seems that with just under a week to go he still has just enough support to be confident of retaining the seat on Thursday. Polling leaked from the Liberal Democrat campaign suggests 46.7 percent, less than the 58.2 percent he won in the 2015 General Election. Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat support has jumped to 43.3 percent, well up from the 19.3 percent they won in 2015 and within touching distance of Goldsmith.
Ironically, were Goldsmith to win and retain his seat, it is the Conservative Party’s decision not to stand a candidate that will have saved him. Although this decision was perhaps understandable given the expectation that Goldsmith would rejoin the Conservatives at some point, as well as the high likelihood that a Conservative candidate would have split the vote, it still means that Goldsmith’s decision to call a by-election in order to stand against his own party was basically pointless. Equally, however, you could argue that the decision of the Labour Party to stand a candidate will have cost the Liberal Democrats the seat. Leading Labour MPs Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy, and Jonathan Reynolds had urged Labour to refrain from fielding a candidate in order to have the best chance of unseating Goldsmith, however the party disagreed and fielded Wolmar, a candidate with no chance of winning but who will likely cost the Lib Dems a fair few votes.
What seems clear is that this by-election is set to go down to the wire. More so than the Witney by-election earlier in the year, the result in this vote will be of real significance to the ongoing debate over Brexit. Were Goldsmith to retain his seat, Theresa May could use the result as tacit consent amongst those who voted remain for the pursuit of a ‘hard Brexit”, but were Olney to defeat him, then this would serve to increase the growing divides that have been evident within the electorate since the referendum.
Whoever wins, it is going to be close.
Author jameswrigleyblogPosted on November 26, 2016 Categories UK PoliticsTags 1994, 2010, 2010 General Election, 2015, 2015 General Election, 2016, 2016 London Mayoral Election, 2016 Richmond Park by-election, Article 50, Brexit, by-election, Cameron, Chris Grayling, Christian Wolmar, Conservative Party, Conservatives, David Cameron, Elections, England, EU, EU Referendum, Europe, European Politics, European Union, Farage, Goldsmith, Grayling, Green Party, Greens, Heathrow, Heathrow Expansion, High Court, House of Commons, Independent, James Goldsmith, Khan, Kramer, Labour, Labour Party, Leave, Lib Dems, Liberal Democrats, London, May, Nigel Farage, Olney, Parliament, Politics, Referendum, Referendum Party, Remain, Richmond Park, Sadiq Khan, Sarah Olney, Supreme Court, Susan Kramer, Theresa May, Transport, UK, UK Independence Party, UK Politics, UKIP, United Kingdom, Witney, Wolmar, Zac GoldsmithLeave a comment on Will Richmond Park ‘Sack Zac’?
So much for ‘Take Back Control’.
On 23 June, the UK voted to leave the European Union on the back of a successful campaign from Vote Leave which emphasised taking back control and regaining sovereignty from the European Union. Indeed Vote Leave’s slogan was ‘Take Back Control’, and the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove repeated this phrase endlessly throughout the campaign, it seemed to be the answer to every question posed of them.
Alas, when the UK judiciary did take back control last week, those on the Leave side of the debate were not best pleased.
Last week, High Court judges ruled that Parliament had to have a vote on the triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the article which starts the process of withdrawing from the EU and which has to be triggered before any formal discussions can begin between the UK Government and the EU on a trade deal amongst other things. Theresa May and her Government felt that they should be able to choose when to trigger Article 50 themselves, and has such they have suggested that they will be appealing the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court in due course.
The result of this court case led to huge anger from Leave campaigners like Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan-Smith, Suzanne Evans, and of couse The Daily Mail, all of whom cried (as they always seem to) that the ruling amounted to some sort of establishment stitch up.
However, wasn’t this exactly what they wanted?!
Their whole campaign to Leave the EU (which in economic terms was nonsensical) rested on the idea that the UK’s sovereignty was being impeded by the European Union. So you would think that there would be some pleasure in seeing UK Courts taking control of the situation.
But no, all we got was anger and even a suggestion from UKIP Leadership candidate Suzanne Evans that we should end the independence of the judiciary, with judges being elected to their positions — what a disaster that would likely turn out to be.
I suppose ‘Take Back Control So Long As The Decisions Made Are In Our Interest” wasn’t catchy enough for the big red battle bus.
What Leave voters need to understand (and very few of them seem to) is that the court case is not about stopping Brexit, indeed the vast majority of those who voted to Remain accept the result of the referendum. Full disclosure: I voted Remain myself, and was strongly in favour of remaining. Although I am still of the opinion that the referendum should never have been called it ultimately was, and I am willing to accept the result. However, just because the Leave campaign won, doesn’t mean that the views of the 48 percent who voted Remain should be completely ignored, we should be seeking some sort of consensus in order to unite the country. Equally, amongst the 52 percent who voted Leave, many voted for completely different things. Some voted to completely withdraw from Europe and all its institutions, some voted purely to retake Parliamentary sovereignty in terms of legislation, some voted purely to reduce immigration, many voted to leave the EU but still harboured a desire to remain inside the Single Market — including former Conservative MP Stephen Phillips who resigned on Friday.
Yes, the public have voted to Leave the European Union, but that does not mean we should just Leave straight away without the Government even thinking about it first. In my mind, there is surely no better way to do this than to put the issue to Parliament, to individuals who deal with complex legislation every day.
In addition, it is important for the electorate to now where the government stands on negotiating a deal with the European Union — where the government’s ‘red line’ is, so to speak. Given that Theresa May hasn’t been elected as Prime Minister, this is even more important. Yes, I know that technically we have a Parliamentary system where we don’t elect the Prime Minister, however I personally think that the vast majority of people cast their vote based in large part upon the party leaders who are the prospective Prime Ministers.
On this basis, it seems right that the government should call an early election in order to gauge public opinion about what sort of Brexit the electorate wants. For the government to go into negotiations in effect blind, means that there will definitely be a vast majority of UK citizens who feel disappointed with the results — likely including many who voted Leave on June 23.
As for those Leave campaigners who are still criticising the judges who made last week’s decision, they are playing a very dangerous game. As one of the more sensible Leave campaigners, journalist Iain Martin wrote in The Observer on Sunday: “we could try electing judges, or ordering judges to disregard and ignore the rule of law on the order of politicians, but the international historical precedents do not suggest it ever ends well.” Those Leave campaigners should stop to discredit and promote the illegitimacy of these judges. For them to continue to do so could be hugely harmful to the rule of law in this country.
They should remember that the decision is not a stitch up which aims to stop Brexit, but it is simply the court ensuring that Parliament plays its rightful role in the process, by providing a check to the government’s power.
Author jameswrigleyblogPosted on November 7, 2016 November 7, 2016 Categories EU Referendum, UK PoliticsTags 2016, Article 50, Boris, Boris Johnson, Brexit, Conservative Party, Conservatives, Early General Election, EU, EU Referendum, Europe, European Union, Eurozone, Farage, Gove, High Court, House of Commons, House of Lords, Iain Duncan-Smith, Iain Martin, Journalism, Judiciary, Law, Leave, Lisbon Treaty, May, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage, Parliament, Parliamentary Sovereignty, Remain, Rule of Law, Single Market, Stephen Phillips, StrongerIn, Supreme Court, Suzanne Evans, Take Back Control, The Daily Mail, The Observer, Theresa May, UK, UK Economy, UK Politics, UKIP, United Kingdom Independence Party, Vote LeaveLeave a comment on So much for ‘Take Back Control’.
Trump and Clinton face off last night in Las Vegas.
Both Clinton and Trump had their best debate, but the Democrat came out on top.
Last night the final presidential debate of this marathon of a campaign took place at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. For the first half an hour, we were treated to something we hadn’t seen so far in this year’s presidential campaign: an actual policy debate!
The forceful moderating of Fox News’ Chris Wallace led the candidates to discuss some actual issues. The debate touched upon the Supreme Court, gun control, abortion rights, and immigration; and for this first half hour, both candidates did pretty well.
For the first time, Trump put forward some actual policy, and it was clear that he had been well coached in what he needed to say to reassure the Republican base. He was clear about how he would appoint pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, putting the issue of abortion rights back into the hands of individual States; although his knowledge of what actually constitutes a partial-birth abortion was lacking. He was clear on his opposition to any form of gun control, and made a big thing about his endorsement from the NRA. He then went on to talk about how he was the only one of the two candidates who could reduce immigration, reinforcing his commitment to building the impossible border wall, and once again falsely claiming that he had been endorsed by ICE. Throughout this, Hillary Clinton was calm and collected, giving strong policy answers, which were typically almost opposite to Trump’s views.
At this stage, it would be fair to say that Trump and Clinton were neck-and-neck, both debating strongly, and putting forward strong policy based answers.
But then, Trump decided he’d had enough of being Presidential, and the classic Donald Trump re-emerged. He became short-tempered, and began to constantly interrupt his opponent.
This was pretty much how it went for the rest of the debate, Trump veered a long way off-piste from his original plan to look more Presidential and put forward actual policy (a plan to which he was actually adhering for the first 30 minutes of the debate).
In a question that Trump was surely expecting, he was asked about the sexual assault allegations that have been levelled against him in recent weeks. However, despite the sheer obviousness of the question, he didn’t appear ready for it. Trump claimed that the allegations have been “largely debunked,” suggesting that he isn’t completely denying them; and once again claimed “no one has more respect for women than me,” which is clearly untrue regardless of the veracity of these latest allegations. Clinton countered with a stirring answer headlined with, “Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger.” This was perhaps one of the few moments, where we have seen some real emotion for Clinton in these debates, and she did well.
Both candidates struggled in questions about their respective foundations, but Clinton then came out on top in a question on experience. When Trump reused a favourite line about how Clinton had been in public office for thirty years but hadn’t, in his opinion, done anything, she had a strong (albeit pre-prepared) response. She did well to compare her career with Trump’s, explaining how their respective life experiences made her the better candidate. Trump had little in response, and by this point he was largely beaten.
Although Trump began the debate well, and acted calm and Presidential, this soon changed, to the extent that at times the debate resembled a slanging match between a brother and sister. Petty responses like “you’re the puppet” and “should’ve gotten it” only add more ammunition to those who say Trump doesn’t have the temperament to be President. They would be right. It seems fair to say that anyone that can get as riled up by Twitter as Trump, shouldn’t have the nuclear codes.
Overall, although this was probably Donald Trump’s best debate performance, it won’t have done much for his chances in this election. He started well and things were looking good for him, but he quickly lost interest in proper debate and things descended into name calling, with Trump using his closing statement to call Hillary Clinton, “a nasty women”. For Clinton, all she had to do was turn up, and barring any revelation about a serious scandal she would be ok. She did this. For Trump it was a last chance to appear Presidential. Although he did this for the first thirty minutes, the way he lost his cool later on completely wrecked his progress.
Now the only question is how close this election will be, because surely Trump cannot win. I remain of the view that the popular vote will be relatively close, but it looks as though Clinton could win a huge victory in the Electoral College. All we can do now is wait and see.
Author jameswrigleyblogPosted on October 20, 2016 October 20, 2016 Categories Election 2016, US PoliticsTags 2016, 2016 Presidential Election, Abortion, Chris wallace, Clinton, Clinton Emails, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Donald Trump, Electoral College, Emmys, Fox News, Gun Control, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, ICE, John Podesta, Las Vegas, National Rifle Association, Nevada, NRA, Podesta, Podesta Emails, Policy, Popular Vote, Presidency, President, Presidential Debates, Presidential Race, Putin, Republican Party, Republicans, Roe v. Wade, Russia, Supreme Court, Temperament, The Apprentice, The Clinton Foundation, The Supreme Court, Trump, Trump's wall, Twitter, University of Nevada, Vladimir PutinLeave a comment on Debate Debrief.
In terms of the Supreme Court, this is the most important presidential election in years.
When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died on 13 February, no one quite expected just how bloody the battle to choose his replacement would come. However, given that Scalia was one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court, and the Republicans hold a majority in both houses of Congress it was, in hindsight, rather predictable.
Antonin Scalia, whose death created a Supreme Court vacancy.
Nonetheless, it is rather rare for the majority party in Congress to not even consider a nomination made by the sitting president, as was the case when the Republicans in the Senate made clear that they would not be considering Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland under any circumstances.
President Obama nominates Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
On the face of it Garland was a consensus pick. There is little doubt that Obama could have chosen a far more overtly liberal justice in order to fill the vacancy left by Scalia. However, he recognised that with his party in the minority in the Senate, he would have to appease Senate Republicans somewhat. What he didn’t count on however, was that the GOP would have no inclination whatsoever to even consider his nominee.
The rationale of Senate Republicans was that withholding confirmation for Garland was necessary in order to, “protect the will of the American people”.Suggesting that with the Presidential election ongoing, the new President should be the one who is allowed to pick the next justice. However, this was somewhat undermined by the comments of two Republican Senators.Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona suggested that Garland should only be confirmed if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, because Garland is less liberal than any nominee Clinton is likely to put forward, suggesting that if Clinton win then, “we ought to approve him quickly.” Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah concurred with Flake’s view. Comments such as this suggest that Senate Republicans were motivated far less by democracy than by partisan concerns regarding the direction of future legislation.
Realistically, the reason for the unwillingness of Senate Republicans to give Garland a confirmation hearing was due to his significance to the future direction of the court.
Following the death of Scalia, the court is locked 4–4 between Democratic and Republican appointees. If Garland were to be confirmed then there would be majority of Democratic appointees for the first time since 1969. This has serious significance for the direction of future legislation.
However, Merrick Garland is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how significant this Presidential election is to the future make-up of the Supreme Court.
It has been suggested that the next President might be able to appoint up to four Supreme Court justices, with Donald Trump even suggesting that they might be able to appoint five if Garland hasn’t been confirmed prior to the inauguration.
The reason for this is that many of the Supreme Court justices are now getting to the point where they might consider retirement. The left-wing justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now 83, whilst centre-left justice Stephen Breyer is 78. If Clinton is elected come November, then expect these two to retire. Likewise, the relatively centrist Anthony Kennedy is now 80, and surely nearing the end of his career.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy are all nearing the end of their careers on the bench.
Each of the last four Presidents has had the opportunity to appoint two Supreme Court Justices. This means that already it is looking as though the next President is going to have a outsize influence on the makeup of the court, meaning a sizeable influence on policy for a generation.
Earlier in this election, Donald Trump took the slightly unusual step of releasing a list of prospective Supreme Court justices, who he would look to appoint were he elected in November. Unsurprisingly, most of the list had impeccable conservative credentials. Trump’s reasoning for this is that he wants to appeal to Republicans who want to protect recent Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United which prohibits the government from restricting the election spending of corporations; and District of Columbia v. Heller which further protected the right to bear arms. Whilst the also wants to attract voters who are keen to see the rolling back of Roe v. Wade and Obamacare. Conversely, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are on the complete opposite of this debate.
Both candidates clearly understand the importance of this election in terms of the direction of legislation in the future. Given that Supreme Court Justices are given a lifetime appointment to the court, these decisions will affect the direction of legislation well beyond the presidencies of either Trump or Clinton.
This only serves to make this election even stranger: the fact that the two most unpopular presidential candidates in history, will have perhaps more impact on legislation than any of their predecessors.
Author jameswrigleyblogPosted on September 28, 2016 September 28, 2016 Categories Election 2016, US PoliticsTags 2016, 2016 Presidential Election, America, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Arizona, Barack Obama, Citizens United, Conservatism, Conservative, Democratic Party, District of Columbia v. Heller, Donald Trump, Election 2016, GOP, Healthcare, Heller, Hillary Clinton, Jeff Flake, Law, Liberal, Liberalism, Merrick Garland, Obama, Obamacare, Orrin Hatch, Politics, Presidency, Presidential Race, Republican Party, Roe v. Wade, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, Trump, United States, US, US Politics, USA, UtahLeave a comment on In terms of the Supreme Court, this is the most important presidential election in years.


text:
(L) thirty-six general trustees, who shall be citizens of the United States, to be appointed in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.
(3) the term of office of a member appointed before July 21, 1994, shall expire as designated at the time of appointment.
1994—Pub. L. 103–279, §2(b)(1)(A), substituted section catchline for former section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–279, §2(b)(1)(A), inserted heading, in first sentence inserted “as the National Center for the Performing Arts, a living memorial to John Fitzgerald Kennedy,” after “and site thereof”, and in second sentence substituted “Superintendent of Schools of the District of Columbia” for “Chairman of the District of Columbia Recreation Board” and “the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and 3 additional Members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 3 additional Members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate” for “three Members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate, and three Members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–279, §2(d), inserted heading, inserted “of the United States” before “may designate” in first sentence, substituted “carried out by the John” for “carried on in the John” in fifth sentence, and struck out before period at end of last sentence “, but each member of such Committee shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by him in connection with the work of such Committee”.
1963—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 88–100, §1, substituted “thirty” for “fifteen” after “ex officio; and”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 88–100, §2, inserted provisions governing the terms of the additional fifteen general trustees added to the Board by section 1 of Pub. L. 88–100.
“(A) Superintendent of schools of the district of columbia.—The amendment made by paragraph (1)(C)(i) [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of expiration of the term of the Chairman of the District of Columbia Recreation Board serving as a trustee of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on the date of enactment of this Act [July 21, 1994].
The Board shall construct for the Smithsonian Institution, with funds raised by voluntary contributions, a building to be designated as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on a site in the District of Columbia bounded by the Inner Loop Freeway on the east, the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge approaches on the south, Rock Creek Parkway on the west, New Hampshire Avenue and F Street on the north, which shall be selected for such purpose by the National Capital Planning Commission. The National Capital Planning Commission shall acquire by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, lands necessary to provide for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and related facilities. Such building shall be in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Commission of Fine Arts.
(B) site improvements and modifications.
The plan shall be on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Secretary of the Center.
(C) any project to acquire large screen format equipment for an interpretive theater, or to produce an interpretive film, that the Board specifically designates will be financed using sources other than appropriated funds.
1997—Pub. L. 105–95 substituted section catchline for former section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).
1964—Pub. L. 88–260 substituted “John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” for “National Cultural Center” wherever appearing.
(I) ensure that safe and convenient access to the site of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is provided for pedestrians and vehicles.
The Board, in accordance with applicable law, may enter into contracts or other arrangements with, and make payments to, public agencies or private organizations or other private persons in order to carry out the functions of the Board under this subchapter. The authority described in the preceding sentence includes utilizing the services and facilities of other agencies, including the Department of the Interior, the General Services Administration, and the Smithsonian Institution.
The Board shall prepare a budget pursuant to sections 1104, 1105(a), and 1513(b) of title 31.
The Board may utilize or employ the services of the personnel of any agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government or the District of Columbia, with the consent of the agency or the instrumentality concerned, on a reimbursable basis, and utilize voluntary and uncompensated personnel.
with selected contractors and award the contract on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.
The Board shall maintain the Hall of Nations, the Hall of States, and the Grand Foyer of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in a manner that is suitable to a national performing arts center that is operated as a Presidential memorial and in a manner consistent with other national Presidential memorials.
The Board shall manage and operate the grounds of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in a manner consistent with National Park Service regulations and agreements in effect on July 21, 1994. No change in the management and operation of the grounds may be made without the express approval of Congress and of the Secretary of the Interior.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Board shall assure that after December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
which plaque or inscription is permitted under policies of the Board in effect on December 2, 1983.
(3) For purposes of this subsection, testimonials and benefit performances shall not be construed to be memorials.
1998—Subsec. (a)(1)(G). Pub. L. 105–226, §2, amended subpar. (G) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (G) read as follows: “with respect to each feature of the building and site of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts that is in existence on July 21, 1994 (including a theater, the garage, the plaza, or a building walkway), plan, design, and construct each capital repair, replacement, improvement, rehabilitation, alteration, or modification necessary for the feature;”.
Subsec. (a)(1)(H)(ii). Pub. L. 105–226, §3, amended cl. (ii) generally. Prior to amendment, cl. (ii) read as follows: “with respect to each feature of the building and site of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts that is in existence on July 21, 1994 (including a theater, the garage, the plaza, or a building walkway), all necessary maintenance, repair, and alteration of, and all janitorial, security, and other services and equipment necessary for the operation of, the feature, in a manner consistent with requirements for high quality operations; and”.
1997—Subsec. (a)(1)(I). Pub. L. 105–95 added subpar. (I).
1983—Pub. L. 98–205 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
1964—Pub. L. 88–260 struck out “and” at end of par. (3), substituted “John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” for “Cultural Center” in par. (4), and added par. (5).
“(1) Study.—The Secretary [of Transportation], in cooperation with the District of Columbia, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and the Department of the Interior and in consultation with other interested persons, shall conduct a study of methods to improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
“(2) Report.—Not later than September 30, 1999, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the results of the study with an assessment of the impacts (including environmental, aesthetic, economic, and historical impacts) associated with the implementation of each of the methods examined under the study.
“(3) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this subsection $500,000 for fiscal year 1998.
The Board is authorized to solicit and accept for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, as a bureau of the Smithsonian Institution, and to hold and administer gifts, bequests, or devises of money, securities, or other property of whatsoever character for the benefit of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Unless otherwise restricted by the terms of the gift, bequest, or devise, the Board is authorized to sell or exchange and to invest or reinvest in such investments as it may determine from time to time the moneys, securities, or other property composing trust funds given, bequeathed, or devised to or for the benefit of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The income as and when collected shall be placed in such depositaries as the Board shall determine and shall be subject to expenditure by the Board.
The Board shall appoint and fix the compensation and duties of a Chairperson of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, who shall serve as the chief executive officer of the Center, and a Secretary of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The Chairperson and Secretary shall be well qualified by experience and training to perform the duties of their respective offices.
(B) such other officers and employees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as may be necessary for the efficient administration of the functions of the Board.
Not later than October 1, 1995, the property, liabilities, contracts, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, used, arising from, available to, or to be made available in connection with the functions transferred from the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the amendments made by the John F. Kennedy Center Act Amendments of 1994 shall be transferred, subject to section 1531 of title 31, to the Board as the Board and the Secretary of the Interior may determine appropriate. Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to this subsection shall be used only for the purposes for which, and subject to the terms under which, the funds were originally authorized and appropriated.
Employees of the National Park Service assigned to duties related to the functions being undertaken by the Board shall be transferred with their functions to the Board not later than October 1, 1995.
Transferred employees shall remain in the Federal competitive service and retain all rights and benefits provided under title 5. For a period of not less than 3 years after the date of transfer of an employee under paragraph (1), the transferred employee shall retain the right of priority consideration under merit promotion procedures or lateral reassignment for all vacancies within the Department of the Interior.
All United States Park Police and Park Police guard force employees assigned to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts shall remain employees of the National Park Service.
All usual and customary costs associated with any adverse action or grievance proceeding resulting from the transfer of functions under this section that are incurred before October 1, 1995, shall be paid from funds appropriated to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit the Board from reorganizing functions at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in accordance with laws governing reorganizations.
The actions of the Board relating to performing arts and to payments made or directed to be made by the Board from any trust funds shall not be subject to review by any officer or agency other than a court of law.
As used in this subsection, the term “theatrical employee” means a nonappropriated fund employee of the Board, who is engaged in a box office, performing, or theatrical trade that is the subject of a collective bargaining agreement as of January 1, 1994, including any change in the trade as a result of a technological advance.
(ii) with respect to a theatrical employee, the Board shall be considered to be an “employer” within the meaning of section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(2)).
With respect to each theatrical employee, the theatrical employee and the Board shall have all of the rights and obligations specified in such Acts.
Subject to approval of the Secretary of the Interior under section 76j(a)(2)(F) of this title, the Board shall develop plans and carry out projects to improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
The John F. Kennedy Center Act Amendments of 1994, referred to in subsec. (c), is Pub. L. 103–279, July 21, 1994, 108 Stat. 1409, which enacted sections 76r and 76s of this title, amended this section, sections 76h, 76j, 76l, and 76p of this title, and sections 193r, 193u, and 193v of former Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, and enacted and amended provisions set out as notes under section 76h of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1994 Amendment note set out under section 76h of this title and Tables.
The provisions relating to the Federal competitive service, referred to in subsec. (d)(2), are classified generally to section 3301 et seq. of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
The National Labor Relations Act, referred to in subsec. (f)(2), is act July 5, 1935, ch. 372, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, which is classified generally to subchapter II (§151 et seq.) of chapter 7 of Title 29, Labor. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 167 of Title 29 and Tables.
The Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, referred to in subsec. (f)(2), is act June 23, 1947, ch. 120, 61 Stat. 136, as amended, which is classified principally to chapter 7 (§141 et seq.) of Title 29. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 141 of Title 29 and Tables.
1997—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 105–95 added subsec. (g).
1994—Pub. L. 103–279, §4(a)(1), substituted section catchline for former section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–279, §4(a)(1), inserted heading and substituted “John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, as a bureau of the Smithsonian Institution,” for “Smithsonian Institution”.
Subsecs. (d) to (f). Pub. L. 103–279, §4(c), added subsecs. (d) to (f).
1964—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 88–260 substituted “John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” for “National Cultural Center” wherever appearing.
The Board is authorized to adopt an official seal which shall be judicially noticed and to make such bylaws, rules, and regulations, as it deems necessary for the administration of its functions under this subchapter, including, among other matters, bylaws, rules, and regulations relating to the administration of its trust funds and the organization and procedure of the Board. The Board may function notwithstanding vacancies and twelve members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
The Board shall have all the usual powers and obligations of a trustee in respect of all trust funds administered by it.
The Board shall submit to the Smithsonian Institution and to Congress an annual report of the operations of the Board under this subchapter, including a detailed statement of all public and private moneys received and disbursed by it.
The functions of the Board funded by funds appropriated pursuant to section 76r 1 of this title shall be subject to the requirements for a Federal entity under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.). The Inspector General of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized to carry out the requirements of such Act on behalf of the Board, on a reimbursable basis when requested by the Board.
The Board may procure insurance against any loss in connection with the property of the Board and other assets administered by the Board. Each employee and volunteer of the Board shall be considered to be a civil employee of the United States (within the meaning of the term “employee” as defined in section 8101(1) of title 5), except that the Board shall continue to provide benefits with respect to any disability or death resulting from a personal injury to a nonappropriated fund employee of the Board sustained while in the performance of the duties of the employee for the Board pursuant to the workers compensation statute of the jurisdiction in which the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is located. The disability or death benefits referred to in the preceding sentence, whether under the workers compensation statute referred to in the preceding sentence or under chapter 81 of title 5, shall continue to be the exclusive liability of the Board and the United States with respect to all employees and volunteers of the Board.
For the purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, an employee of the Board shall be considered to be an “employee of the government” and the Board shall be considered to be a “Federal agency”. No employee of the Board may bring suit against the United States or the Board under the Federal tort claims procedure of chapter 171 of title 28 for disability or death resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of the duties of the employee for the Board.
Section 76r of this title, referred to in subsec. (d), was in the original a reference to section 12 of Pub. L. 85–874. Section 12 of Pub. L. 85–874 was renumbered as section 13, and a new section 12 was added, by Pub. L. 107–224, §2, Sept. 18, 2002, 116 Stat. 1340. Sections 12 and 13 are classified to sections 76q–1 and 76r, respectively, of this title.
The Inspector General Act of 1978, referred to in subsec. (d), is Pub. L. 95–452, Oct. 12, 1978, 92 Stat. 1101, as amended, which is set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
1994—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–279, §5(1), substituted “the operations of the Board” for “its operations”.
Subsecs. (d) to (f). Pub. L. 103–279, §5(2), added subsecs. (d) to (f) and struck out former subsec. (e) which related to maintenance, repair, alteration, security, information, and other services and former subsec. (f) which related to audits.
1982—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 97–202 inserted provisions authorizing an appropriation of not to exceed $4,247,000 for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1983.
1981—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 97–73 inserted provision authorizing an appropriation of not to exceed $4,544,000 for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1982.
1980—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 96–587 inserted provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal years ending Sept. 30, 1980, and Sept. 30, 1981.
1978—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 95–305 inserted provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1979.
1977—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 95–50 substituted provisions authorizing an appropriation of $4,000,000 for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1978, for provisions authorizing appropriations of $4,000,000 for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1978, and not to exceed $4,300,000 for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1979.
1976—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 94–578 substituted provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal years ending Sept. 30, 1978, and Sept. 30, 1979, for provisions covering fiscal years ending Sept. 30, 1976, Sept. 30, 1977, and transitional period ending Sept. 30, 1976.
1975—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 94–119, §1, inserted provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, for the transitional period ending Sept. 30, 1976, and for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1977.
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 94–119, §2, added subsec. (f).
1973—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 93–67 substituted provisions authorizing appropriations not to exceed $2,400,000 for fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and $2,500,000 for fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, for provision granting general authorization of appropriation for fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.
1972—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 92–313 added subsec. (e).
1964—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 88–260, §1(4), inserted “and to Congress” after “Smithsonian Institution”.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 88–260, §1(5), added subsec. (d).
1963—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 88–100 substituted “twelve” for “eight” after “vacancies and”.
For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions in subsec. (c) of this section relating to submitting annual report to Congress, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and page 192 of House Document No. 103–7.
The Board may study, plan, design, engineer, and construct a photovoltaic system for the main roof of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
Not later than 60 days before beginning construction of the photovoltaic system pursuant to subsection (a), the Board shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the feasibility and design of the project.
A prior section 76m, Pub. L. 85–874, §7, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1700; Pub. L. 86–297, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 573; Pub. L. 88–100, §4, Aug. 19, 1963, 77 Stat. 128; Pub. L. 88–260, §1(2), Jan. 23, 1964, 78 Stat. 4; Pub. L. 99–514, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, which related to termination of offices created and appointments made in connection with John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts if moneys were not found to construct the Center within eight years after Sept. 2, 1958, was repealed by Pub. L. 101–449, §3, Oct. 22, 1990, 104 Stat. 1050.
Section, Pub. L. 85–874, §8, as added Pub. L. 88–260, §1(6), Jan. 23, 1964, 78 Stat. 4; amended Pub. L. 91–90, §1(a), Oct. 17, 1969, 83 Stat. 135; Pub. L. 92–313, §9, June 16, 1972, 86 Stat. 222; Pub. L. 95–50, §1, June 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 232, authorized appropriations for construction, repair, renovation, and reconstruction of John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
To finance necessary parking facilities for the Center, the Board may issue revenue bonds to the Secretary of the Treasury payable from revenues accruing to the Board. The total face value of all bonds so issued shall not be greater than $20,400,000. Such obligations shall have maturities agreed upon by the Board and the Secretary of the Treasury but not in excess of fifty years. Such obligations may be redeemable at the option of the Board before maturity in such manner as may be stipulated in such obligations, but the obligations thus redeemed shall not be refinanced by the Board. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to purchase any obligations of the Board to be issued under this section and for such purpose the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31 and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31 are extended to include any purchases of the Board's obligations under this section.
Effective as of October 12, 1984, the obligations of the Board incurred under subsection (a) of this section shall bear no interest, and the requirement of the Board to pay the unpaid interest which has accrued on such obligations is terminated.
There is hereby established in the Treasury of the United States a sinking fund, the Kennedy Center Revenue Bond Sinking Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “Fund”), which shall be used to retire the obligations of the Board incurred under subsection (a) of this section upon the respective maturities of such obligations. The Board shall pay into the Fund, beginning on January 1, 1987 and ending on January 1, 2016, the annual sum of $200,000 in amortization of the principal amount of the obligations. Such sums shall be invested by the Secretary of the Treasury in public debt securities with maturities suitable for the needs of the Fund and bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities. The interest on such investments shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund. Moneys in the Fund shall be used exclusively to retire the obligations of the Board incurred under subsection (a) of this section. Adjustments of not greater than plus or minus 5 per centum may be made from time to time in the annual payments to the Fund in order to correct any gains or deficiencies as a result of fluctuations in interest rates over the life of the investments: Provided, however, That a final adjustment shall be made between the Board and the Secretary of the Treasury at the end of the amortization period to correct any overall gain or deficiency in the Fund. The terms of this adjustment shall be covered by a memorandum of understanding between the Board and the Secretary of the Treasury to be consummated on or before the time the initial payment into the Fund is made.
1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–449 substituted “chapter 31 of title 31” for “the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended,” in two places.
1984—Pub. L. 98–473 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), struck out provisions relating to interest on bonds, and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
1969—Pub. L. 91–90 substituted “$20,400,000” for “$15,400,000” in two places.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, designated by this subchapter, shall be the sole national memorial to the late John Fitzgerald Kennedy within the city of Washington and its environs.
The term “air rights” means real property interests conveyed by deed, lease, or permit for the use of space between streets and alleys within the boundaries of the Project.
The term “Center” means the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
The term “green spaces” means areas within the boundaries of the Project or affected by the Project that are covered by grass, trees, or other vegetation.
The term “Plaza” means improvements to the area surrounding the John F. Kennedy Center building carried out under the Project and comprised of transportation elements (including roadways, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes) and non-transportation elements (including landscaping, green space, open public space, water, sewer, and utility connections).
The term “Project” means the Plaza project, as described in the TEA–21 report, providing for construction of a Plaza adjacent to the Center and for improved bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular access to and around the Center. The term includes planning, design, engineering, and construction of the Plaza, buildings to be constructed on the Plaza, and related transportation improvements and may include any other elements of the Project identified in the TEA–21 report.
The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Transportation.
The term “TEA–21 report” means the report of the Secretary submitted to Congress under section 1214 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (20 U.S.C. 76j note; 112 Stat. 204).
The Secretary shall be responsible for the Project and may undertake such activities as may be necessary to construct the Project, other than buildings to be constructed on the Plaza, substantially as described in the TEA–21 report.
The Secretary shall be responsible for the planning, design, engineering, and construction of the Project, other than buildings to be constructed on the Plaza.
The Secretary shall enter into memoranda of agreement with the Board and any appropriate Federal or other governmental agency to facilitate the planning, design, engineering, and construction of the Project.
The Secretary shall consult with the Board to maximize efficiencies in planning and executing the Project, including the construction of any buildings on the Plaza.
Subject to the approval of the Board, the Secretary may enter into contracts on behalf of the Center related to the planning, design, engineering, and construction of the Project.
To further construction of the Project, the Secretary shall establish a Project Team.
(i) The Secretary (or the Secretary's designee).
(ii) The Administrator of General Services (or the Administrator's designee).
(iii) The Chairman of the Board (or the Chairman's designee).
(iv) Such other individuals as the Project Team considers appropriate.
The Project Team shall have a Project Director who shall be appointed by the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of General Services and the Chairman of the Board. The Project Director shall report directly to the Project Team.
The Board, in consultation with the Project Team, may undertake such activities as may be necessary to construct buildings on the Plaza for the Project.
The Board may receive from the District of Columbia such transfers of air rights as may be necessary for the planning, design, engineering, and construction of the Project.
The Board, in consultation with the Project Team, may construct, with non-appropriated funds, buildings on the Plaza for the Project and shall be responsible for the planning, design, engineering, and construction of the buildings.
The Board may acknowledge private contributions used in the construction of buildings on the Plaza for the Project in the interior of the buildings, but may not acknowledge private contributions on the exterior of the buildings.
Any acknowledgment of private contributions under this paragraph shall be consistent with the requirements of section 76j(b) of this title.
Notwithstanding section 76k(e) of this title, any decision by the Board that will significantly affect, as determined by the Project Team in consultation with the Board, the scope, cost, schedule, or engineering feasibility of any element of the Project, other than buildings to be constructed on the Plaza, shall be subject to the approval of the Project Team.
Notwithstanding any State or local law, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, in consultation with the National Capital Planning Commission and the Secretary, shall have exclusive authority to amend or modify the permanent system of highways of the District of Columbia as may be necessary to meet the requirements and needs of the Project.
Notwithstanding any State or local law, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall have exclusive authority to convey or dispose of any interests in real estate (including air rights or air space as that term is defined by District of Columbia law) owned or controlled by the District of Columbia, as may be necessary to meet the requirements and needs of the Project.
Not later than 90 days following the date of receipt of notification from the Secretary of the requirements and needs of the Project, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall convey or dispose of to the Board without compensation interests in real estate described in subparagraph (A).
The Mayor of the District of Columbia shall have the authority to enter into memoranda of agreement with the Board and any Federal or other governmental agency to facilitate the planning, design, engineering, and construction of the Project.
Upon completion of the Project, responsibility for maintenance and oversight of roadways and sidewalks modified or improved for the Project shall remain with the owner of the affected roadways and sidewalks.
Subject to paragraph (3), upon completion of the Project, responsibility for maintenance and oversight of any green spaces modified or improved for the Project shall remain with the owner of the affected green spaces.
Upon completion of the Project, the Board shall own, operate, and maintain the buildings and green spaces established on the Plaza for the Project.
The Secretary may realign national highways related to proposed changes to the Northern and Southern Interchanges and the E Street Approach recommended in the TEA–21 report in order to facilitate the flow of traffic in the vicinity of the Center.
The Secretary may improve direct access and egress between Interstate Route 66 and the Center, including its garages.
Until completion of the Project, the Comptroller General shall review the management and oversight of construction of the Project by the Board and report periodically on the results of the review to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
Section 1214 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, referred to in subsec. (a)(7), is section 1214 of Pub. L. 105–178, which enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 50 and 76j of this title, section 460m–29a of Title 16, Conservation, and section 202 of Title 23, Highways, and enacted provisions listed in a table of National Wildlife Refuges set out under section 668dd of Title 16.
A prior section 12 of Pub. L. 85–874 was renumbered section 13 and is classified to section 76r of this title.
2004—Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 108–410, §3(a), added par. (6).
Subsec. (c)(1), (3). Pub. L. 108–410, §3(b)(1), (2), inserted “, in consultation with the Project Team,” after “The Board”.
Subsec. (c)(5). Pub. L. 108–410, §3(b)(3), added par. (5).
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 108–410, §3(c), added subsec. (g).
(5) $24,500,000 for fiscal year 2012.
(5) $18,500,000 for fiscal year 2012.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for capital costs incurred in the planning, design, engineering, and construction of the project authorized by section 76q–1 of this title (including roadway improvements related to the North and South Interchanges and construction of the John F. Kennedy Center Plaza, but not including construction of any buildings on the plaza) a total of $400,000,000 for fiscal years 2003 through 2010. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Board such sums as are necessary to carry out section 76m of this title, to remain available until expended.
No funds appropriated pursuant to this section may be used for any direct expense incurred in the production of a performing arts attraction, for personnel who are involved in performing arts administration (including any supply or equipment used by the personnel), or for production, staging, public relations, marketing, fundraising, ticket sales, or education. Funds appropriated directly to the Board shall not affect nor diminish other Federal funds sought for any performing arts function and may be used to reimburse the Board for that portion of costs that are Federal costs reasonably allocated to building services and theater maintenance and repair.
A prior section 13 of Pub. L. 85–874 was renumbered section 14 and is classified to section 76s of this title.
“(3) $19,100,000 for fiscal year 2007.
Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 110–338, §4(2), (3), added subsec. (d) and redesignated former subsec. (d) as (e).
2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–306, §1(a), struck out “and” at end of par. (1), substituted “and 2006; and” for “, 2006, and 2007.” in par. (2), and added par. (3).
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–306, §1(b), struck out “and” at end of par. (1), substituted “and 2006; and” for “, 2006, and 2007.” in par. (2), and added par. (3).
“(3) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
2002—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 107–224, §3, added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d).
“(a) Maintenance, Repair, and Security.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Board to carry out section 76j(a)(1)(H) of this title $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
As used in this subchapter, the terms “building and site of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” and “grounds of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” refer to the site in the District of Columbia on which the John F. Kennedy Center building is constructed and that extends to the line of the west face of the west retaining walls and curbs of the Inner Loop Freeway on the east, the north face of the north retaining walls and curbs of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge approaches on the south, the east face of the east retaining walls and curbs of Rock Creek Parkway on the west, and the south curbs of New Hampshire Avenue and F Street on the north, as generally depicted on the map entitled “Transfer of John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts”, numbered 844/82563, and dated April 20, 1994 (as amended by the map entitled “Transfer of John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts”, numbered 844/82563A and dated May 22, 1997), which shall be on file and available for public inspection in the office of the National Capital Region, National Park Service, Department of the Interior. Upon completion of the project for establishment of the John F. Kennedy Center Plaza authorized by section 76q–1 of this title, the Board, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall amend the map that is on file and available for public inspection under the preceding sentence.
1997—Pub. L. 105–95 inserted “(as amended by the map entitled ‘Transfer of John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts’, numbered 844/82563A and dated May 22, 1997)” after “April 20, 1994”.

matches: §2 §2 §2 §1 §2 §2 §3 §4 §4 §4 §2 §5 §5 §1 §2 §1 §1 §7 §4 §1 §2 §3 §8 §1 §1 §9 §1 §3 §3 §3 §3 §4 §1 §1 §3


Lawyers and judges look to the Supreme Court of Virginia for benchmarks in trial courts’ awards of sanctions for “frivolous” pleadings.
The high court set one such benchmark four years ago, when it upheld sanctions against an insurance defense lawyer who filed the same list of affirmative defenses when a products liability suit was nonsuited, then refiled after substantial discovery.
The trial judge, who thought the lawyer could have sorted through the available defenses before refiling them all, whacked the lawyer for $2,500 under Virginia Code §8.01-271.1, the sanctions statute.
On appeal, the high court surprised practically everyone. It upheld the award in Ford Motor Co. v. Benitez (VLW 007-6-001). Over the years, numerous judges across the state had levied sanctions under §8.01-271.1 in a variety of situations, only to see the Supreme Court reverse. Only two sanctions awards ever had been upheld.
With Benitez, the high court had hit a nerve, especially among defense lawyers. The case was the buzz of the bar for months. It struck at a very basic defense-lawyer practice: Defense attorneys often listed any conceivable affirmative defense in their pleadings, in part because case law had suggested that defenses could be waived if not pleaded.
So what has happened since? Any fears that the Supreme Court might be looking to hold attorneys to stricter account in their pleadings have not been borne out.
The court has decided three cases since Benitez in which a circuit court awarded sanctions under Virginia Code § 8.01-271.1.
And in each case, it has set aside the award.
The most recent case was handed down just this month, Johnson v. Garr (VLW 011-6-033).
Forty Gloucester County residents filed petitions in circuit court under Virginia Code §§ 24.3-233 and 24.2-235 seeking removal of four members of the county board of supervisors.
A special prosecutor nonsuited the removal action after finding the petitions defective and concluding that the allegations might have involved bad judgment but not criminal acts. The supervisors applied for attorneys’ fees and costs and sought sanctions against the petitioners.
Judge Designate Westbrook J. Parker hit each of the 40 petitioners with a $2,000 sanctions award under Code § 8.01-271.1.
The General Assembly took swift action in 2009 when it amended § 24.3-233 to bar the imposition of sanctions against anyone who signs or circulates a removal petition.
Parker’s sanctions of the Gloucester petitioners remained, however, and they appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were analogous to victims in a criminal proceeding, so that the real party interest is the commonwealth. Because § 8.01-271.1 applies only to attorneys and parties, sanctions could not be imposed on the petitioners, the court held.
The other two recent sanctions cases involved an unusually persistent attorney and a lawyer who short-circuited a trial by filing a bankruptcy petition electronically the evening before the trial was scheduled to begin.
A Norfolk circuit judge ordered the attorney who filed the bankruptcy petition to personally pay $14,090 – the fees, expert charges and costs the judge concluded had been incurred in the week before trial.
The judge based his ruling on the filing of a witness and exhibit list when the attorney did not intend to try the case. The Supreme Court set aside sanctions after concluding in McNally v. Rey (VLW 008-6-047) that there was no basis in the record for such a finding.
The Supreme Court decided the persistent attorney case, Ferris v. Kiritsis (VLW 010-6-059), by unpublished order, a procedure that L. Steven Emmert, the Virginia Beach appellate specialist who represented the attorney, suggested might have reflected a reluctance by the court to appear to be endorsing the filing of three motions to reconsider a default judgment.
The third motion was one too many for a Chesterfield circuit judge, who imposed an $800 sanction.
Emmert contended that it wasn’t as bad as it looked for his client because the first judge to hear the case had invited the second reconsideration motion, and the third motion amounted to a request for another judge to look at the issue because the first judge discovered a conflict and disqualified himself.
Emmert emphasized that there had been no argument or finding about the specific factors mentioned in § 8.01-271.1, and the Supreme Court adopted Emmert’s rationale in reversing the sanctions.
Kevin E. Martingayle, a Virginia Beach lawyer, has followed sanctions cases closely since the Supreme Court upheld them in 1999 in Cardinal Holding Company v. Deal (VLW 099-6-138).
The court upheld more than $32,000 in sanctions against a Richmond lawyer and his firm because they pursued an assigned legal malpractice claim despite controlling authority that a legal malpractice claim cannot be assigned.
Stanley P. Wellman, a civil defense attorney in Richmond, said he believes many of his colleagues focused too much on what could be viewed as a challenge to the way they tried cases rather than on the unusual circumstances of the case.
Wellman said his firm has seen no rise in Benitez-related motions.
He said he suspects the plaintiff’s bar has been somewhat reluctant to push aggressively for sanctions because of a concern that the defense bar might respond with more challenges to plaintiffs’ pleadings.
The Supreme Court will have an opportunity to expand its § 8.01-271.1 jurisprudence in a case involving sanctions against a plaintiff and her attorney.
Fairfax Circuit Judge Jonathan C. Thacher, the same judge who imposed the sanction on the defense attorney in Benitez, ordered the attorney and plaintiff in a dispute over a real estate commission to pay $272,096 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The suit was filed “out of a vindictive and malevolent desire to injure and intimidate a business competitor,” Thacher found.
The Supreme Court granted review of the case, Northern Virginia Real Estate Inc. v. Martins, Record No. 101836, in December.
The justices “recognize that sanctions should be a last resort” and are “sensitive to the fact that some lawyers are trigger-happy” in filing a motion for sanctions, said Emmert, who represented the sanctioned party or attorney in all three post-Benitez cases.
He suggested that a phone call rather than a sanctions motion remains the proper response to a perception that an adversary may be out of line.


text:
C 2πε0 2πε0 2πε0 r 24.10: a)   ln(rb ra )   12  1.77  b  5.84. L ln(rb ra ) C L 31.5  10 F m ra Q C b)  V  (2.60 V)(31.5  10 12 F m)  8.19  10 11 C m . L L 2πε0 2πε0 24.11: a) C L    6.56  10 11 F/m. ln (rb ra ) ln(3.5 mm / 1.5 mm) b) The charge on each conductor is equal but opposite. Since the inner conductor is at a higher potential it is positively charged, and the magnitude is: 2ε0 LV 2ε0 (2.8 m)(0.35 V) Q  CV    6.43  10 11 C. ln(rb ra ) ln (3.5 mm 1.5 mm ) 24.12: a) For two concentric spherical shells, the capacitance is: 1 r r  kCra C   a b   kCrb  kCra  ra rb  rb  k  rb  ra    kC  ra k (116  10 12 F)(0.150 m)  rb   0.175 m. k (116  1012 F)  0.150 m b) V  220 V, and Q  CV  (116  1012 F)(220 V)  2.55  108 C. 1  rb ra  1  (0.148 m)(0.125 m)  24.13: a) C    r  r   k  0.148 m  0.125 m   8.94  10 F.    11 k b a   b) The electric field at a distance of 12.6 cm: kQ kCV k (8.94  1011 F)(120 V) E 2  2   6082 N/C. r r (0.126 m) 2 c) The electric field at a distance of 14.7 cm: kQ kCV k (8.94  1011 F)(120 V) E 2  2   4468 N/C. r r (0.147 m) 2 d) For a spherical capacitor, the electric field is not constant between the surfaces.
1 1 1 1 1 24.14: a)     Ceq C1  C2 C3 ((3.0  5.0)  10 F) (6.0  10 6 F) 6  Ceq  3.42  10 6 F. The magnitude of the charge for capacitors in series is equal, while the charge is distributed for capacitors in parallel. Therefore, Q3  Q1  Q2  VCeq  (24.0 V )(3.42  10 6 F)  8.21  10 5 C. Q1 Q2 C 5 Since C1 and C 2 are at the same potential,   Q2  2 Q1  Q, C1 C 2 C1 3 Q3  8 Q1  8.21  10 5 C  Q1  3.08  105 C, and Q2  5.13  10 5 C. 3 b) V2  V1  Q1 C1  (3.08  10 5 C) /(3.00  10 6 F)  10.3 V. And V3  24.0 V  10.3 V  13.7 V. c) The potential difference between a and d: Vad  V1  V2  10.3 V. 1 1 1 1 1 24.15: a)  1    Ceq ( C1  C2 )  C3 C4 (2.00 μF  4.0 μF) (4.0 μF) 1  Ceq  2.40 μF. Then, Q12  Q3  Q4  Qtotal  CeqV  (2.40  10 6 F)(28.0 V )  6.72  10 5 C and Qtotal 6.72  10 5 C 2Q12  Q3  Q12    2.24  10 5 C, and Q3  4.48  10 5 C. But 3 3 5 also, Q1  Q2  Q12  2.24  10 C. b) V1  Q1 C1  (2.24  10 5 C) (4.00  10 6 F)  5.60 V  V2 V3  Q3 C3  (4.48  10 5 C) (4.00  10 6 F)  11.2 V. V4  Q4 C4  (6.72  105 C) (4.00  106 F)  16.8 V. c) Vad  Vab  V4  28.0 V  16.8 V  11.2 V. 24.16: a) 1 1 1 1 1     Ceq C1 C 2 (3.0  10 F) (5.0  10 6 F) 6  5.33  105 F 1  Ceq  1.88  10 6 F  Q  VCeq  (52.0 V)(1.88  10 6 F)  9.75  10 5 C b) V1  Q / C1  9.75  105 C 3.0  106 F  32.5 V. V2  Q / C2  9.75  105 C 5.0  106 F  19.5 V.
24.17: a) Q1  VC1  (52.0 V)(3.0  10 6 F)  1.56  10 4 C. Q2  VC2  (52.0 V)(5.0  106 F)  2.6  104 C. b) For parallel capacitors, the voltage over each is the same, and equals the voltage source: 52.0 V. 24.18: Ceq   1 C1  C12  1   d1 ε0 A  ε0 A d 2 1  ε0 A d1  d 2 . So the combined capacitance for two capacitors in series is the same as that for a capacitor of area A and separation (d1  d 2 ) . ε0 ( A1  A2 ) 24.19: Ceq  C1  C2    ε0 A1 ε0 A2 d d d . So the combined capacitance for two capacitors in parallel is that of a single capacitor of their combined area ( A1  A2 ) and common plate separation d. 24.20: a) and b) The equivalent resistance of the combination is 6.0 F, therefore the total charge on the network is: Q  CeqVeq (6.0 μF)(36 V)  2.16  10 4 C. This is also the charge on the 9.0 μF capacitor because it is connected in series with the point b. So: Q9 2.16  10 4 C V9    24 V. C9 9.0  10 6 F Then V3  V11  V12  V6  V  V9  36 V  24 V  12 V.  Q3  C 3V3  (3.0 F)(12 V)  3.6  10 5 C.  Q11  C11V11  (11 μF)(12 V)  1.32  104 C.  Q6  Q12  Q  Q3  Q11  2.16  10 4 C  3.6  10 5 C  1.32  10 4 C.  4.8  10 5 C. So now the final voltages can be calculated: Q6 4.8  105 C V6    8 V. C6 6.0  10 6 F Q12 4.8  10 5 C V12    4 V. C12 12  10 6 F c) Since the 3 μF, 11 μF and 6 μF capacitors are connected in parallel and are in series with the 9 μF capacitor, their charges must add up to that of the 9 μF capacitor. Similarly, the charge on the 3 μF, 11 μF and 12 μF capacitors must add up to the same as that of the 9 μF capacitor, which is the same as the whole network. In short, charge is conserved for the whole system. It gets redistributed for capacitors in parallel and it is equal for capacitors in series.
24.26: a) C  Q V  (0.0180 μC) (200 V)  9.00  10 11 F. ε0 A Cd (9.00  1011 F)(0.0015 m) b) C   A   0.0152 m 2 . d ε0 ε0 c) E max  Vmax d  Vmax  E max d  (3.00  10 6 V m)(0.0015 m)  4500 V. Q 2 (1.80  10 8 C) 2 d) U   11  1.80  10 6 J. 2C 2(9.00  10 F) 24.27: U  1 CV 2  1 (4.50  10 4 F)(295 V) 2  19.6 J. 2 2 24.28: a) Q  CV0 . b) They must have equal potential difference, and their combined charge must add up to the original charge. Therefore: Q Q V  1  2 and also Q1  Q2  Q  CV0 C1 C 2 C Q Q2 Q C1  C and C2  so 1   Q2  1 2 C (C 2) 2 3 2 Q 2Q 2  Q  Q1  Q1  Q so V  1   V0 2 3 C 3C 3 1  Q1 Q2  1  ( 2 Q) 2 2( 1 Q) 2  1 Q 2 1 2 2 c) U    2  C  C   2  C  C   3 C  3 CV0 3 3 2 1 2    2 2 d) The original U was U  1 CV0  U  61 CV0 . 2 e) Thermal energy of capacitor, wires, etc., and electromagnetic radiation. Q 2 xQ 2 24.29: a) U 0   . 2C 2ε0 A ( x  dx ) Q 2 b) Increase the separation by dx  U  2ε0 A  U 0 (1  dx x). The change is Q2 then 2 ε0 A dx . c) The work done in increasing the separation is given by: dxQ 2 Q2 dW  U  U 0   Fdx  F  . 2 ε0 A 2 ε0 A d) The reason for the difference is that E is the field due to both plates. The force is QE if E is the field due to one plate is Q is the charge on the other plate.
24.38: a) C  Kε0 A d gives us the area of the plates: Cd (5.00  1012 farad)(1.50  103 m) A 12 2  8.475  10 4 m 2 Kε0 (1.00)(8.85  10 C / N  m ) 2 We also have C  Kε0 A d  Q V , so Q  K 0 A(V d ). V d is the electric field between the plates, which is not to exceed 3.00  10 4 N C. Thus Q  (1.00)(8.85  10 12 C 2 N  m 2 )(8.475  10 4 m 2 )(3.00  10 4 N C)  2.25  10 10 C b) Again, Q  Kε0 A(V d )  2.70ε0 A(V d ). If we continue to think of V d as the electric field, only K has changed from part (a); thus Q in this case is (2.70)(2.25  10 10 C)  6.08  10 10 C. 24.39: a) σ i  ε0 ((3.20  2.50)  105 V m)  6.20  10 7 C m 2 . The field induced in the dielectric creates the bound charges on its surface. E 3.20  105 V m b) K  0   1.28. E 2.50  105 V m 24.40: a) E0  KE  (3.60)(1.20  106 V m)  4.32  106 V m  σ  ε0 E0  3.82  105 C m 2 .  1 b) σ i  σ 1    (3.82  10 5 C m 2 )(1  1 3.60)  2.76  10 5 C m 2 .  K c) U  2 CV 2  uAd  1 Kε0 E 2 Ad 1 2  U  1 (3.60)ε0 (1.20  106 V m) 2 (0.0018 m)(2.5  10 4 m 2 )  1.03  10 5 J. 2 Kε0 A Kε0 AE CV (1.25  10 9 F)(5500 V) 24.41: C    A   0.0135 m 2 . d V Kε0 E (3.60)ε0 (1.60  10 7 V m) 24.42: Placing a dielectric between the plates just results in the replacement of  for  0 in the derivation of Equation (24.20). One can follow exactly the procedure as shown for Equation (24.11).
24.52: a) System acts like two capacitors in series so Ceq   1 C1  C2  1 1 ε0 L2 ε0 L2 1 Q2 1 Q2 Q 2d C1  C 2  d so Ceq  2d  U 2 C  ε L2  2 2d 0   ε0 L2 . b) After rearranging, the E fields should be calculated. Use superposition recalling E  2 εQ A for a single plate (not εQA since charge Q is only on one face). 0 0  Q   Q   Q   Q  Q between 1 and 3: E    2ε L   2     2     2     2  2  0 1  2ε0 L 3  2ε0 L  2  2ε0 L  4 ε0 L  Q   Q   Q   Q  2Q between 3 and 2: E    2ε L2    2ε L2    2ε L2    2ε L2   ε L2         0 1  0 3  0  2  0  4 0  Q   Q   Q   Q  Q between 2 and 4: E    2ε L2    2ε L2    2ε L2    2ε L2   ε L2         0 1  0 3  0 2  0  4 0 1  1  Q2 4Q 2 Q2  3Q 2 d U new   ε0 E 2  L2 d  ε0  2 4  2 4  2 4  L2 d  2  2  ε0 L  ε0 L ε0 L   ε0 L2 3Q 2 d Q 2 d 2Q 2 d U  U new  U    ε0 L2 ε0 L2 ε0 L2 This is the work required to rearrange the plates. 24.53: a) The power output is 600 W, and 95% of the original energy is converted.  E  Pt  ( 2.70  105 W ) (1.48  10 3 s)  400 J  E0  400 J  421 J. 0.95 1 2U 2(421 J) b) U  CV 2  C  2   0.054 F 2 V (125 V) 2 Aε0 (4.20  10 5 m 2 )ε0 24.54: C0   4  5.31  10 13 F d 7.00  10 m  C  C0  0.25 pF  7.81  10 13 F. Aε0 Aε (4.20  105 m 2 )ε0 But C   d  0   4.76  10 4 m. d C 13 7.81  10 F Therefore the key must be depressed by a distance of: 7.00  10 4 m  4.76  10 4 m  0.224 mm.
2πε0 L 2πε0 L 2πε0 L 2πra Lε0 ε0 A 24.55: a) d  ra : C      . ln(rb ra ) ln((d  ra ) ra ) ln(1  d ra ) d d b) At the scale of part (a) the cylinders appear to be flat, and so the capacitance should appear like that of flat plates. 24.56: Originally: Q1  C1V1  (9.0 μF) (28 V)  2.52  104 C; Q2  C2V2  (4.0 μF)  (28 V)  1.12  10 4 C, and Ceq  C1  C2  13.0 μF. So the original energy stored is U  1 CeqV 2  1 (13.0  106 F) (28 V) 2  5.10 103 J. Disconnect and flip the capacitors, 2 2 so now the total charge is Q  Q2  Q1  1.4  10 4 C, and the equivalent capacitance is still the same, Ceq  13.0 μF. So the new energy stored is : Q2 (1.4  10 4 C) 2 U   7.54  10 4 J 2Ceq 2(13.0  10 6 F)  U  7.45  10 4 J  5.10  10 3 J   4.35  10 3 J. 24.57: a) Ceq  4.00 μF  6.00 μF  10.00 μF, and Qtotal  Ceq V  (10.00 μF) (660 V)  6.6  10 3 C. The voltage over each is 660 V since they are in parallel. So: Q1  C1V1  (4.00 μF) (660 V)  2.64  10 3 C. Q2  C2V2  (6.00 μF) (660 V)  3.96  10 3 C. b) Qtotal  3.96  10 3 C  2.64  10 3 C  1.32  10 3 C, and still Ceq  10.00  F, so the voltage is V = Q/C = (1.32  10 3 C) (10.00 μF)  132 V, and the new charges: Q1  C1V1  (4.00 μF)(132 V)  5.28  104 C. Q2  C2V2  (6.00 μF)(132 V)  7.92  10 4 C.
24.58: a) C eq  C 2   C. So the total capacitance is the same as each individual capacitor, and C 2 the voltage is spilt over each so that V  480 V. Another solution is two capacitors in parallel that are in series with two others in parallel. b) If one capacitor is a moderately good conductor, then it can be treated as a “short” and thus removed from the circuit, and one capacitor will have greater than 600 V over it. 1 1 1 1 24.59: a)     C1  C5  2C 2 and  Ceq C1 C 2  C3  C14 1 1 C5 1 2 2 5 3 C 2  C3  C 4 so    C 2  Ceq  C 2  2.52 μF. Ceq C1 3C 2 3 5 b) Q  CV  (2.52 μF)(220 V)  5.54  104 C  Q1  Q5  V1  V5  (5.54  10 4 C) / (8.4  10 6 F)  66 V. So V2  220  2(66)  88 V  Q2  (88 V)(4.2 μF)  3.70  10 4 C. Also V3  V4  1 2 (88 V)  44 V  Q3  Q4  (44 V)(4.2 μF)  1.85  10 4 C.
24.65: a) Q is constant. with the dielectric: V  Q C  Q ( KC0 ) without the dielectric: V0  Q C0 V0 / V  K , so K  (45.0 V)/(11.5 V)  3.91 b) Let C0  ε0 A d be the capacitance with only air between the plates. With the dielectric filling one-third of the space between the plates, the capacitor is equivalent to C1 and C 2 in parallel, where C1 has A1  A / 3 and C 2 has A2  2 A / 3 C1  K C0 3 , C2  2 C0 3; Ceq  C1  C2  (C0 3) ( K  2) Q Q 3   3   3  V    K  2   V0  K  2   (45.0 V)  5.91   22.8 V    Ceq C0       24.66: a) This situation is analagous to having two capacitors C1 in series, each with separation 1 2 (d  a ). Therefore C   1 C1  C1 1  1  1 C1  2 1 ε0 A 2 (d  a) 2  ε0 A d a . ε0 A ε A d d b) C   0  C0 . d a d d a d a c) As a  0, C  C0 . And as a  d , C  . 24.67: a) One can think of “infinity” as a giant conductor with V  0. b) C  V  (Q / 4πε 0 R )  4πε0 R, where we’ve chosen V  0 at infinity. Q Q c) Cearth  4πε0 Rearth  4πε0 (6.4  106 m)  7.1  10 4 F. Larger than, but comparable to the capacitance of a typical capacitor in a circuit.

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