Thesis (S.T.M.)--Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1996. / This is an electronic reproduction of TREN, #020-0165. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 195-207).

Although the U.S. Supreme Court reached the correct result in Obergefell v. Hodges, its substantive due process and equal protection analyses were wrong. First, the majority opinion discusses the concept of equal dignity, which has no legal definition nor has it been used in prior Supreme Court jurisprudence. The majority made another mistake in using substantive due process when Obergefell could have been decided on the basis of equal protection alone. Despite these mistakes, there were parts of the opinion the Court did decide correctly. The end result -- that same-sex couples have the right to marry -- was the correct outcome. This is based on the fact that the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a fundamental right and banning marriage to same sex couples would be discrimination on the part of the government. While the majority was also correct in overruling the prior method of defining fundamental rights set forth by Glucksberg, the Court should not have made defining fundamental rights so unlimited in scope. Justice Kennedy removed the prior standard for defining fundamental rights without creating a new standard for judges to follow in the future, leaving the future of substantive due process cases uncertain. This neglect to implement a new standard to replace Glucksberg’s standard leaves substantive due process open to judicial interpretation. The Court also came close, but still neglected, to create a quasi-suspect class on the basis of sexual orientation. The Court should have created standards that were not so overly broad for future decisions regarding substantive due process, and it should have classified sexual orientation as a quasi-suspect class

<p>A series of aeroelastic analyses is performed for a flexible high-aspect-ratio wing representative of a high altitude long endurance (HALE) aircraft. Such aircraft are susceptible to dynamic instabilities such as flutter, which can lead to large amplitude limit cycle oscillations. These structural motions are modeled by a representative linear typical section model and by Hodges-Dowell beam theory, which includes leading-order nonlinear elastic coupling. Aerodynamic forces are represented by the ONERA dynamic stall model with its coefficients calibrated to CFD data versus wind tunnel test data. Time marching computations of the coupled nonlinear beam and ONERA system highlight a number of features relevant to the aeroelastic response of HALE aircraft, including the influence of a tip store, the sensitivity of the flutter boundary and limit cycle oscillations to aerodynamic CFD or test data, and the roles of structural nonlinearity and nonlinear aerodynamic stall in the dynamic stability of high-aspect-ratio wings.</p> / Dissertation

Climate change is putting the Earth’s biodiversity in serious jeopardy. UBC’S Biodiversity Research Centre is aiming to understand the impact of this shift.

This essay seeks to explore the relation between Crimson Bound and the fairy tale from which it derives from. Today, it is common to use fairy tales as a base for new literature, movies and tv-series and therefore it is interesting to study these new additions to our media. By applying Vladimir Propps extensive study of fairy tales to Rosamund Hodges Crimson Bound and the Brothers Grimms Little Red Cap I hope to come to an understanding of the differences and similarities that these two holds. Through this analysis I conclude that Hodges utilizes the functions that Propp states are specific to the fairy tale genre. I also conclude that, although Hodges closely follow the initial structure of Little Red Cap, she deviates from the fairy tale towards the ending. Besides the interesting similarities and the effect of the differences, the roles of the protagonist and the antagonist stands out. Therefore, a portion of this essay delves deeper into how the adaption to the fantasy genre affect these roles as well as how the relationship between then protagonist and antagonist alters due to this.

No description available.

This is an analysis of the U.S. Army's personnel decisions in the Second World War. Specifically, it considers the U.S. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall's appointment of generals to combat command, and his reasons for relieving some generals while leaving others in place after underperformance. Many historians and contemporaries of Marshall, including General Omar N. Bradley, have commented on Marshall's ability to select brilliant, capable general officers for combat command in the war. However, in addition to solid performers like J. Lawton Collins, Lucian Truscott, and George S. Patton, Marshall, together with Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lesley J. McNair, often selected sub-par commanders who significantly underperformed on the battlefield. These generals' tactical and operational decisions frequently led to unnecessary casualties, and ultimately prolonged the war. The work considers six case studies: Lloyd Fredendall at Kasserine Pass, Mark Clark during the Italian campaign, John Lucas at Anzio, Omar Bradley at the Falaise Gap, Courtney Hodges at the Hürtgen Forest, and Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr. at Okinawa. Personal connections and patronage played strong roles in these generals' command appointments, and often trumped practical considerations like command experience. While their superiors ultimately relieved corps commanders Fredendall and Lucas, field army and army group commanders Clark, Hodges, and Bradley retained command of their units, (Buckner died from combat wounds on Okinawa). Personal connections also strongly influenced the decision to retain the field army and army group commanders in their commands.