REPEAL

Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 99 (1980), made clear that an exception to § 1738 will not be recognized unless a later statute contains an express or implied partial repeal. There is no claim here that Title VII expressly repealed § 1738; if there has been a partial repeal, it must be implied. "It is, of course, a cardinal principle of statutory construction that repeals by implication are not favored," Radzanower v. Touche Ross Co., 426 U.S. 148, 154 (1976); United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164, 168 (1976), and whenever possible, statutes should be read consistently. There are, however,

"`two well-settled categories of repeals by implication —

(1) where provisions in the two acts are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one; and

(2) if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate similarly as a repeal of the earlier act.

But, in either case, the intention of the legislature to repeal must be clear and manifest . . . .'" Radzanower v. Touche Ross Co., supra, at 154, quoting Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U.S. 497, 503 (1936).