50 U.S.C. § 3

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 50 CasesGoogle Scholar

In accordance with the declaration of policy set forth in section 2 of this Act, the termination dates of all purchase programs designed to stimulate the domestic production of tungsten, manganese, chromite, mica, asbestos, beryl, and columbium-tantalum-bearing ores and concentrates and established by regulations issued pursuant to the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended [50 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.], shall be extended an additional two years: Provided, That this section is not intended and shall not be construed to limit or restrict the regulatory agencies from extending the termination dates of these programs beyond the two-year extension periods provided by this section or from increasing the quantity of materials that may be delivered and accepted under these programs as permitted by existing statutory authority: Provided further, That the extended termination date provided by this section for the columbium-tantalum purchase program shall not apply to the purchase of columbium-tantalum-bearing ores and concentrates of foreign origin.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1929–2015 · leading case: United States v. Muhtorov

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Muhtorov (2015) cod “13 In 1995 and 1998, Congress amended FISA directly, first to include physical searches, 50 U.S.C. §§ 3 .821—29, and then the installation and use of pen register and trap and trace devices, §§ 1841-46, “for foreign intelligence purposes.”

United States v. Kraus (1929) ca7 “649, 650 [50 USCA § 3]), Congress established a Council of National Defense, consisting of designated members of the Cabinet, and provided therein that the Council should nominate to the President, and the President should appoint, an Advisory Commission.”

United States v. McMurtry (1930) nysd “” Section 2 (50 USCA § 3). It was empowered to adopt rules and regulations for its work and to organize subordinate bodies for its assistance in special investigations either by the employment of experts or the creation of committees.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.