Project (Ed.S.)--James Madison University, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--James Madison University, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Western Seminary, Portland, OR, 2003. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 136-139).

Paleokarst systems owe their complex geometries to the interaction between the karst aquifers and the host rock being dissolved. The majority of paleokarst research to date has considered dissolution of carbonate strata (James and Choquette 1987), but rapid and extensive dissolution of interstratified evaporites can be an important if largely undocumented style of paleokarst that may play an important role in near-surface environmental settings as well as providing a unique style of reservoir heterogeneity in the subsurface (Sando 1967, 1974, 1988; Smith et al. 2004). This study is designed to answer the question, “How do we recognize evaporite paleokarst as distinct from standard meteoric carbonate paleokarst?” using spectacular, laterally continuous exposures in the upper Madison Formation within Bighorn Canyon, Wyoming. Key characteristics of the Madison intrastratal evaporite karst complex were documented and contrasted with the top-Madison surficial karst system resulting in a suite of data that includes detailed section measuring, facies mapping using high resolution photo panels and ground based LiDAR for control. Hand samples, thin sections and x-ray diffraction analysis also contributed to this study. High resolution mapping of key surfaces, karst facies and petrophysical properties were used to develop a stepwise evolutionary model of the evaporite removal paleokarst complex. The interplay between surficial karstification, solution enhanced fractures, subsurface intrastratal evaporite dissolution, collapse and infill, were considered in constructing this model. Similar to standard meteoric paleokarst systems, the Madison evaporite paleokarst has been divided into 7 distinct karst “facies” including laminated cave floor fill, roof collapse chaotic breccias, and suprastratal dissolution complexes. Features proposed to be unique to evaporite paleokarst that will aid in future studies are (1) presence of relic gypsum breccia clasts within cave-fill facies, (2) the near absence of cave pillars or roof touch down within the chaotic breccia zones, indicating removal of a laterally extensive soluble stratum, (4) a striking absence of sub-cave floor breccias or fractures, (5) a distinct breccia matrix consisting of primarily autochthonous detrital dolomite with a minor component of allochthonous detrital clays from the overlying Amsden, suggesting that the bulk of the breccia matrix is locally sourced insoluble residue from evaporite dissolution, and finally (6) close facies associations of the depositional sequence suggesting that evaporites were a likely part of the original stratigraphic record in the Madison. These criteria are considered to be a solid starting point for an evaporite paleokarst model and should assist in the recognition of similar paleokarst breccias in the ancient rock record. / text

The Constitution of the United State has never been a document with a fixed and determinable meaning and demanded continual reinterpretation. During the early republic, legal and political battles over constitutional meaning were commonplace, leading to claims of disloyalty as well as threats of violence. Challenges to actions of the federal government often were done in the name of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and the “Principles of ‘98.” Reflecting a strand of mainstream political thought, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were employed by Pennsylvanians, who militarily resisted federal efforts to enforce a Supreme Court decision, by New Englanders, who effectively nullified certain federal laws during the War of 1812, and by South Carolinians, who attempted to nullify a federal tariff. Authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, in 1798, the Resolutions offered differing visions of the nation’s founding. Jefferson interpreted the Constitution as a contract between state governments, akin to a treaty between independent nations. Thus, unconstitutional actions by the federal government were a breach of the compact, and each state had a right to nullify the offending action. For Madison, the thirteen peoples of the several states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity, were the parties to the compact. Madison did not interpret the Constitution as a contract or treaty and did not deem every breach of the compact as justifying nullification by the people. Only a majority of the people could nullify actions of the federal government.

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1996. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 146-148).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1997. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 177-181).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Western Seminary, Portland, OR, 2003. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 136-139).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1976. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 245-256).