Effect of varying internal geometry on the static performance of rectangular thrust-reverser ports

An investigation has been conducted to evaluate the effects of several geometric parameters on the internal performance of rectangular thrust-reverser ports for nonaxisymmetric nozzles. Internal geometry was varied with a test apparatus which simulated a forward-flight nozzle with a single, fully deployed reverser port. The test apparatus was designed to simulate thrust reversal (conceptually) either in the convergent section of the nozzle or in the constant-area duct just upstream of the nozzle. The main geometric parameters investigated were port angle, port corner radius, port location, and internal flow blocker angle. For all reverser port geometries, the port opening had an aspect ratio (throat width to throat height) of 6.1 and had a constant passage area from the geometric port throat to the exit. Reverser-port internal performance and thrust-vector angles computed from force-balance measurements are presented

Equal Right to the Poor

By law, federal judges must swear or affirm that they will do equal right to the poor and to the rich. This frequently overlooked oath, which I call the equal right principle, has historical roots dating back to the Bible and entered US law in a statute passed by the First Congress. Today, the equal right principle is often understood to require only that judges faithfully apply other laws. But that reading, like the idea that the rich and poor are equally barred from sleeping under bridges, is questionable in light of the equal right principle\u27s text, context, and history. This Article argues that the equal right principle supplies at least a plausible basis for federal judges to consider substantive economic equality when implementing underdetermined sources of law. There are many implications. For example, the equal right principle suggests that federal courts may legitimately limit the poor\u27s disadvantages in the adjudicative and legislative processes by expanding counsel rights and interpreting statutes with an eye toward economically vulnerable groups. The equal right principle should also inform what qualifies as a compelling or legitimate governmental interest within campaign finance jurisprudence, as well as whether to implement underenforced equal protection principles. More broadly, the equal right principle should play a more central role in constitutional culture. The United States is unusual in that its fundamental law is relatively silent on issues of economic equality. The equal right principle can fill that void by providing a platform for legal and public deliberation over issues of wealth inequality. Through judicial confirmation hearings and other forms of public contestation, the equal right principle can help to specify federal judges\u27 legal and moral commitments toward the poor

Static internal performance of ventral and rear nozzle concepts for short-takeoff and vertical-landing aircraft

The internal performance of two exhaust system concepts applicable to single-engine short-take-off and vertical-landing tactical fighter configurations was investigated. These concepts involved blocking (or partially blocking) tailpipe flow to the rear (cruise) nozzle and diverting it through an opening to a ventral nozzle exit for vertical thrust. A set of variable angle vanes at the ventral nozzle exit were used to vary ventral nozzle thrust angle between 45 and 110 deg relative to the positive axial force direction. In the vertical flight mode the rear nozzle (or tailpipe flow to it) was completely blocked. In the transition flight mode flow in the tailpipe was split between the rear and ventral nozzles and the flow was vectored at both exits for aircraft control purposes through this flight regime. In the cruise flight mode the ventral nozzle was sealed and all flow exited through the rear nozzle

Software for cut-generating functions in the Gomory--Johnson model and beyond

We present software for investigations with cut generating functions in the Gomory-Johnson model and extensions, implemented in the computer algebra system SageMath.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures; to appear in Proc. International Congress on Mathematical Software 201

PROMISING THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution requires that all legislators, judges, and executive officers swear or affirm their fidelity to it. The resulting practice, often called “the oath,” has had a pervasive role in constitutional law, giving rise to an underappreciated tradition of promissory constitutionalism. For example, the Supreme Court has cited the oath as a reason to invalidate statutes, or sustain them; to respect state courts, or override them; and to follow precedents, or overrule them. Meanwhile, commentators contend that the oath demands particular interpretive methods, such as originalism, or particular distributions of interpretive authority, such as departmentalism. This Article provides a new framework for understanding the oath, its moral content, and its implications for legal practice. Because it engenders a promise, the oath gives rise to personal moral obligations. Further, the content of each oath, like the content of everyday promises, is linked to its meaning at the time it is made. The oath accordingly provides a normative basis for officials to adhere to interpretive methods and substantive principles that are contemporaneously associated with “the Constitution.” So understood, the oath provides a solution to the “dead hand” problem and explains how the people can legitimately bind their elected representatives: with each vote cast, the people today choose to be governed by oath-bound officials tomorrow. Constitutional duty thus flows from a rolling series of promises undertaken by individual officials at different times. As old officials give way to new ones, the overall constitutional order gradually evolves, with each official bound to a distinctive promise from the recent past. This process of gradual change is normally invisible because the oath also incorporates publicly recognized rules for legal change, or “change rules,” such as the Article V amendment process. As a result, the timing of an official’s oath becomes morally relevant only when a legal change has not complied with previously recognized change rules, such as in the case of a revolution. Finally, because promises, even constitutional promises, should sometimes be broken, the oath can illuminate the bounds of constitutional duty, including the role of stare decisis, and shed light on instances when the Constitution itself should be set aside

Fourth Amendment Fairness

Fourth Amendment doctrine is attentive to a wide range of interests, including security, informational privacy, and dignity. How should courts reconcile these competing concerns when deciding which searches and seizures are “unreasonable”? Current doctrine typically answers this question by pointing to interest aggregation: the various interests at stake are added up, placed on figurative scales, and compared, with the goal of promoting overall social welfare. But interest aggregation is disconnected from many settled doctrinal rules and leads to results that are unfair for individuals. The main alternative is originalism; but historical sources themselves suggest that the Fourth Amendment calls for new moral reasoning. This Article argues that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures” is best understood, at least in large part, as a requirement that police investigation be fair in the sense of being authorized by principles that no rights holder could reasonably reject. This approach is inspired by “contractualist” moral philosophy and has several advantages. It tracks widely held moral intuitions, comports with the Fourth Amendment’s historical meaning, and resonates with underappreciated currents in extant case law. In attending to the perspectives of individuals, contractualism generates rights that are not subject to interest aggregation. At the same time, contractualism suggests a principled way to address new Fourth Amendment questions, consistent with courts’ institutional role. A contractualist approach to Fourth Amendment fairness suggests many ways to refine or reform current doctrine. In terms of refinements, the contractualist approach gives moral content to the notion of “individualized suspicion” by showing when searches and seizures can be justified by a principle of individual responsibility. Contractualism also draws attention to other justifying principles, such as a protection principle, and so explains how and when suspicionless searches and seizures are reasonable. Finally, the contractualist approach identifies areas where current Fourth Amendment doctrine is decidedly unfair and ripe for reform, such as when courts limit rights to avoid diffuse litigation costs, overemphasize “reasonable expectations of privacy,” and ignore the unreasonableness of racial discrimination

Should Chevron Have Two Steps?

Prominent judges and scholars have criticized the familiar Chevron deference scheme on the ground that its two steps are redundant. But each step of traditional two-step Chevron actually does unique interpretive work. In short, step one asks whether agency interpretations are mandatory, whereas step two asks whether they are reasonable. Other judges and scholars defend two-step Chevron on the ground that the second step should be equated with arbitrary-and-capricious review. But that approach makes Chevron partially redundant with the Administrative Procedure Act and compresses the distinct mandatoriness and reasonableness questions into an artificially singular first step. This Article identifies a new approach, called “optional two-step,” which first asks whether the agency’s view is reasonable and then gives courts discretion to determine whether the agency’s view is also mandatory. This discretionary decision procedure recognizes that important normative considerations underlie the choice between one- and two-step versions of Chevron. For example, two-step Chevron fosters the rapid development of precedent, whereas one-step enforces norms of judicial restraint. Chevron thus resembles qualified-immunity jurisprudence, which has likewise struggled to answer the normative question of whether unnecessary holdings should be impermissible, obligatory, or optional. Qualified-immunity case law also sheds much-needed light on how courts should exercise their Chevron discretion. Finally, a review of all published federal appellate decisions citing Chevron in 2011 sheds light on current Chevron practice and suggests that optional two-step may best explain the tensions underlying current Chevron jurisprudence