OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996/2006-03-01/Chapter 5

Chapter 5
The President and National Executive
The President
83.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Powers and functions of President
84.
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
Executive authority of the Republic
85.
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Election of President
86.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Assumption of office by President
87.
Term of office of President
88.
(1)
(2)
Removal of President
89.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
that office, and may not serve in any public office.
Acting President
90.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Cabinet
91.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(4)
(5)
Accountability and responsibilities
92.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
matters under their control.
Deputy Ministers
93.
(1)
(a)
(b)
to assist the members of the Cabinet, and may dismiss them.
(2)
Continuation of Cabinet after elections
94.
Oath or affirmation
95.
Conduct of Cabinet members and Deputy Ministers
96.
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Transfer of functions
97.
(a)
(b)
Temporary assignment of functions
98.
Assignment of functions
99.
(a)
Cabinet member and the Executive Council member or Municipal Council;
(b)
(c)
National intervention in provincial administration
100.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(3)
Executive decisions
101.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
Motions of no confidence
102.
(1)
(2)
# Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996/2006-03-01/Chapter 3

Chapter 3
Co-operative Government
Government of the Republic
40.
(1)
(2)
Principles of co-operative government and intergovernmental relations
41.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(3)
(4)
# Crome Yellow

The first novel by Huxley, published in 1921. It is a witty story that satirizes the fads and fashions of early 20th century.
CROME YELLOW
BY THE SAME AUTHOR LIMBO LEDA; AND OTHER POEMS
CROME YELLOW
BY ALDOUS HUXLEY
LONDON CHATTO & WINDUS 1921
All rights reserved
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED EDINBURGH
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Darbyism and its new Bible

Layout 2
DARBYISM
AND
ITS NEW BIBLE;
taken from an article communicated to
“THE SWORD AND TROWEL,”
the
monthly magazine
of
REV. C. H. SPURGEON,
revised, enlarged, and simplified,
with a sketch of
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION,
and
THE POWER OF THE KEYS.
LONDON: W. MACKINTOSH, PATERNOSTER-ROW.
DUBLIN: G. HERBERT, GRAFTON-STREET.
1874.
London | Dublin: W. Mackintosh, Paternoster Row. | G. Herbert, Grafton Street..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(not listed in original)
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Dare you see a Soul at the White Heat?

* "The White Heat" in Poems: Second Series (1891)
* "Dare you see a soul at the white heat?" in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1924)
# Code of Federal Regulations/Title 29/Chapter XVII/Part 1910

From the U.S. Government Printing Office on GPO Access, revised July 1, 2006.
* Subpart A. General
* Subpart B. Adoption and Extension of Established Federal Standards
* Subpart C Reserved
* Subpart D. Walking-Working Surfaces
* Subpart E. Means of Egress
* Subpart F. Powered Platforms, Manlifts, and Vehicle-Mounted Work Platforms
* Subpart G. Occupational Health and Environmental Control
* Subpart H. Hazardous Materials
* Subpart I. Personal Protective Equipment
* Subpart J. General Environmental Controls
* Subpart K. Medical and First Aid
* Subpart L. Fire Protection
* Subpart M. Compressed Gas and Compressed Air Equipment
* Subpart N. Materials Handling and Storage
* Subpart O. Machinery and Machine Guarding
* Subpart P. Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment
* Subpart Q. Welding, Cutting and Brazing
* Subpart R. Special Industries
* Subpart S. Electrical
* Subpart T. Commercial Diving Operations
* Subparts U–Y Reserved
* Subpart Z. Toxic and Hazardous Substances
# Code of Federal Regulations/Title 11
## Historical

* 1985 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 11
# Code of Federal Regulations/Title 29/Chapter XVII/Part 1910/Subpart H

From the U.S. Government Printing Office on GPO Access, revised July 1, 2005.
* § 1910.101 Compressed gases (general requirements)
* § 1910.102 Acetylene
* § 1910.103 Hydrogen
* § 1910.104 Oxygen
* § 1910.105 Nitrous oxide
* § 1910.106 Flammable and combustible liquids
* § 1910.107 Spray finishing using flammable and combustible materials
* § 1910.108 Reserved
* § 1910.109 Explosives and blasting agents
* § 1910.110 Storage and handling of liquified petroleum gases
* § 1910.111 Storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia
* § 1910.112 Reserved
* § 1910.113 Reserved
* § 1910.119 Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals
* § 1910.120 Hazardous waste operations and emergency response
* § 1910.121 Reserved
Dipping and Coating Operations
* § 1910.122 Table of contents
* § 1910.123 Dipping and coating operations: Coverage and definitions
* § 1910.124 General requirements for dipping and coating operations
* § 1910.125 Additional requirements for dipping and coating operations that use flammable or combustible liquids
* § 1910.126 Additional requirements for special dipping and coating operations

## Authority

* Sections 4, 6, 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657)
* Secretary of Labor's Orders
** No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754)
** No. 8–76 (41 FR 25059)
** No. 9–83 (48 FR 35736)
** No. 1–90 (55 FR 9033)
** No. 6–96 (62 FR 111)
** No. 3–2000 (65 FR 50017)
** No. 5–2002 (67 FR 65008)
* 29 CFR part 1911
* Section 1910.119 also issued under section 304, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C. 655 Note.
* Section 1910.120 also issued under section 126, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 U.S.C. 655 Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553.
# Code of Federal Regulations/Title 11/1985

From the U.S. Government Printing Office on Google Books, revised as of January 1, 1985. (Commons file)
# Code of Federal Regulations/Title 15/Chapter VII

From the U.S. Government Printing Office on GPO Access, revised January 1, 2006.
* Part 700. Defense priorities and allocations system
* Part 701. Reporting of offsets agreements in sales of weapon systems or defense-related items to foreign countries or foreign firms
* Parts 702–704 Reserved
* Part 705. Effect of imported articles on the national security
* Parts 706–709 Reserved
* Part 710. General information and overview of the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR)
* Part 711. General information regarding declaration, reporting and notification requirements
* Part 712. Activities involving Schedule 1 chemicals
* Part 713. Activities involving Schedule 2 chemicals
* Part 714. Activities involving Schedule 3 chemicals
* Part 715. Activities involving Unscheduled Discrete Organic Chemicals (UDOCs)
* Part 716. Initial and routine inspections of declared facilities
* Part 717. Clarification of possible non-compliance with the Convention; challenge inspection procedures
* Part 718. Confidential business information
* Part 719. Enforcement
* Part 720. Denial of export privileges
* Part 721. Inspection of records and recordkeeping
* Parts 722–729 Reserved
* Part 730. General information
* Part 732. Steps for using the EAR
* Part 734. Scope of the Export Administration regulations
* Part 736. General prohibitions
* Part 738. Commerce Control List overview and the country chart
* Part 740. License exceptions
* Part 742. Control policy—CCL based controls
* Part 743. Special Reporting
* Part 744. Control policy: end-user and end-use based
* Part 745. Chemical Weapons Convention requirements
* Part 746. Embargoes and other special controls
* Part 747. Special Iraq reconstruction license
* Part 748. Applications (classification, advisory, and license) and documentation
* Part 750. Application processing, issuance, and denial
* Part 752. Special comprehensive license
* Part 754. Short supply controls
* Part 756. Appeals
* Part 758. Export clearance requirements
* Part 760. Restrictive trade practices or boycotts
* Part 762. Recordkeeping
* Part 764. Enforcement and protective measures
* Part 766. Administrative enforcement proceedings
* Part 768. Foreign availability determination procedures and criteria
* Part 770. Interpretations
* Part 772. Definitions of terms
* Part 774. The Commerce Control List
* Parts 775–799 Reserved
# Code of Federal Regulations/Title 21

From the U.S. Government Printing Office on Google Books, revised as of April 1, 1990. (Commons file)
# Code of Federal Regulations/Title 29/Chapter XVII

From the U.S. Government Printing Office on GPO Access, revised July 1, 2006.
* Part 1900 Reserved
* Part 1901 Reserved
* Part 1902. State plans for the development and enforcement of State standards
* Part 1903. Inspections, citations and proposed penalties
* Part 1904. Recording and reporting occupational injuries and illnesses
* Part 1905. Rules of practice for variances, limitations, variations, tolerances, and exemptions under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
* Part 1906 Reserved
* Part 1908. Consultation agreements
* Part 1910. Occupational safety and health standards
# Code of Federal Regulations/Title 15

From the U.S. Government Printing Office on GPO Access, revised January 1, 2006.
Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of Commerce (Parts 0–29, Reserved) Subtitle B—Regulations Relating to Commerce and Foreign Trade
* Chapter I. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce (Parts 30–199)
* Chapter II. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce (Parts 100–299)
* Chapter III. International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce (Parts 300–399)
* Chapter IV. Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Department of Commerce (Parts 400–499)
** Part 400. Regulations of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board
* Chapter VII. Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce (Parts 700–799)
* Chapter VIII. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce (Parts 800–899)
** Part 801. Survey of international trade in services between U.S. and foreign persons
** Part 806. Direct investment surveys
** Part 807. Public information
* Chapter IX. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (Parts 900–999)
* Chapter XI. Technology Administration, Department of Commerce (Parts 1100–1199)
** Part 1150. Marking of toy, look-alike and imitation firearms
** Part 1160. Productivity, technology and innovation
** Part 1170. Metric conversion policy for Federal agencies
** Part 1180. Transfer by Federal agencies of scientific, technical and engineering information to the National Technical Information Service
* Chapter XIII. East-West Foreign Trade Board (Parts 1300–1399)
** Part 1300. Reports on exports of technology
* Chapter XIV. Minority Business Development Agency (Parts 1400–1499)
** Part 1400. Determination of group eligibilty for MBDA assistance
Subtitle C—Regulations Relating to Foreign Trade Agreements
Subtitle D—Regulations Relating to Telecommunications and Information
# Davis v. Utah

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
151 U.S. 262
Davis v. Utah
Warren N. Dusenberry, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Maxwell, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. Virginia

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 697
Davis v. Virginia
Argued: March 9, 1915. --- Decided: March 22, 1915
Messrs. John Winston Read and Thomas J. Christian for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Christopher B. Garnett, and Mr. John Garland Pollard, Attorney General of Virginia, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. Virginia/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 697
Davis v. Virginia
Argued: March 9, 1915. --- Decided: March 22, 1915
The plaintiff in error was convicted of peddling without a license. His defense was that, if applied to his dealings, the Virginia law would interfere with commerce among the states, contrary to article I., § 8 of the Constitution. The facts are as follows. The Empire Art Institute of New York sent soliciting agents to Virginia, who took orders on a blank furnished by the company. These blanks stated that the company would place a limited number of a 'new Aquarell Portrair' 'at cost of material, India Ink $1.98 and Water Color $3.96,' and the one exhibited went on: 'On or about Apr. 10, 1911, we agree to deliver to the holder of this contract a fully finished Ink Portrait _____ x _____ as shown by our salesman. Mrs. T. P. Morrisette agrees to pay $1.98 for the portrait when delivered. We do not compel you to take frames from us but owing to the delicate nature of the work all portraits are delivered in appropriate frames which this ticket entitles you to select at wholesale prices.' On receipt of such order the company shipped the portrait when prepared, and, in a separate parcel, frames suitable for them, to an agent, in this case the plaintiff in error. The latter put the pictures into appropriate frames and then delivered the portraits, offering the customer a choice of three different styles of frames, the customer taking one or not, at his will.
The court below thought that the purchase of the frames was to be regarded as a separate transaction, occurring wholly in Virginia. Whether or not this was its technical aspect as an executed contract, it often has been pointed out that commerce among the states is a practical, not a technical, conception. The preliminary contract bound the company to furnish a chance to take a frame with the portrait. Obviously it was contemplated that the frames would be sent from New York as well as the pictures, as in practice they were, and although the bargain was not complete until the company's offer was accepted in Virginia, the furnishing of the opportunity was a part of the interstate transaction. From the point of view of commerce, the business was one affair. Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U.S. 124, 54 L. ed. 965, 28 L.R.A.(N.S.) 264, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 649; Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U.S. 389, 57 L. ed. 565, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 294; Browning v. Waycross, 233 U.S. 16, 21, 58 L. ed. 828, 832, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 578.
Judgment reversed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. United States (364 U.S. 505)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 505
Davis v. United States (364 U.S. 505)
Upon consideration of the entire record and the suggestion of the Solicitor General, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted limited to that part of the judgment concerned with Counts I, II, and III of the indictment and that part of the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for a new trial on Counts I, II, and III. In all other respects the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. United States (384 U.S. 953)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 953
Davis v. United States (384 U.S. 953)
Martin Garbus, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Robert S. Erdahl and Marshall T. Golding, for the United States.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Stewart:
'The petitioner stands convicted for sending two allegedly obscene phonograph records through the mail. One of the records consists almost entirely of the sounds of percussion instruments. Its title 'Erotica,' is a gross misnomer. The second record is a transcription of passages from 'Songs of Bilitis,' a book of poems published by Pierre Louys in 1894. Pierre Louys was a French poet and novelist who lived from 1870 to 1925. The Columbia Dictionary of Modern European Literature says that his poems 'by their grace, by that clear imagery characteristic of the Parnassian school and by their pure and flexible harmony of style may well become immortal; indeed few poets have ever had a more fervent worship of beauty and a more profound respect for form. The works of Louys have inspired several musicians, among whom the most notable is Clause Debussy. * * *'
'Under the First Amendment this conviction cannot stand. I would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment.'
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins this dissent, adding that he would also reverse on the basis of his separate opinions in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 86 S.Ct. 942, 16 L.Ed. 31, and A Book Named 'John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure' v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 86 S.Ct. 975, 16 L.Ed.2d 1. Mr. Justice BLACK would also grant certiorari and reverse the judgment.

## Notes

* ↑ He was also convicted for mailing non-obscene circulars advertising these records for sale. If the records are not obscene, the convictions on these advertising counts obviously cannot stand. Five additional counts involve the label of a third record, pasted on the outside of its mailing wrapper. This record was not even alleged to be obscene.
* ↑ Columbia Univ. Press, N.Y., 1947.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. United States (384 U.S. 953)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 953
Davis v. United States (384 U.S. 953)

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. Virginian Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Concurring Opinion

    Whittaker

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 354
Davis v. Virginian Railway Company
Argued: Dec. 10, 1959. --- Decided: Jan 25, 1960
Mr. Henry E. Howell, Jr., Norfolk, Va., for petitioner.
Mr. Thomas R. McNamara, Norfolk, Va., for respondent.
Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Dallas County, Missouri v. Alfred Huidekoper/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 655
Dallas County, Missouri v. Alfred Huidekoper
These are suits in equity to enjoin the collection of judgments against Dallas county on coupons for interest attached to the same class of bonds just considered in Dallas Co. v. Huidekoper (No. 225) 154 U.S. 654, 14 Sup. Ct. 1190, and relief is asked on the ground that the charter of the railroad company had expired before any organization was effected under it, and that this fact was not known to the county until after the judgment was rendered. After what has been said in the other case, it is clear that the bills were properly dismissed without considering the power of a court of equity to sustain such a suit, and the decree in each of the cases is consequently affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Dalton v. Bowers

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
287 U.S. 404
Dalton v. Bowers
Argued: Nov. 14, 1932. --- Decided: Dec 12, 1932
Mr. Arnold Lichtig, of New York City, for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Dallas Company v. McKenzie/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 686
Dallas Company v. McKenzie
It is no longer an open question in this court that bonds issued by counties in Missouri during the years 1870 and 1871, in payment of subscriptions to the stock of railroad companies, without a vote of the people, are valid, if the subscription was made under authority granted before the adoption of the constitution of 1865, which did not require such a vote to be taken. In Co. of Ralls v. Douglass, 105 U.S. 728, the cases in the supreme court of the state and in this court bearing on that question are referred to, and our conclusion distinctly stated. We there declined to follow the case of State v. Dalls Co. Ct. 72 Mo. 329, decided in 1878, which substantially overruled a long line of cases in the supreme court of the state on which our earlier decisions were predicated. In Marcy v. Tp. of Oswego, 92 U.S. 637, and Humboldt Tp. v. Long, Id. 642, followed in Wilson v. Salamanca, 99 U.S. 504, it was expressly decided that municipal bonds were not invalid in the hands of a bona fide holder by reason of their having been voted and issued in excess of the statutory limit, if the recitals imported a valid issue. It is an admitted fact in this case that McKenzie, the defendant in error, is a bona fide holder for value of the coupons sued on, and the recitals, which are almost in the exact language of those in Wilson v. Salamanca, supra, imply authority for the issue of the bonds from which they were cut. Consequently, in this case, the excessive issue is no defense.
The records of the county court, which were put in evidence, show affirmatively that all the justices were present and acting at the adjourned and special terms, when the orders were made directing the subscription to the stock, and providing as to the terms of the contract. The last order was made at a regular term. Under these circumstances, it is certainly to be presumed, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that the terms were regularly called and held. It was therefore not error to admit the records in evidence without proof of the order for the adjourned term, or to call for the special term. The fact that the order of the seventh of August, 1871, is referred to in the recitals of the bond as having been made on the 12th, is unimportant. Smith v. Co. of Clark, 54 Mo. 58.
The judgment is affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse