Examination of the Circle Spline Routine

The Circle Spline routine is currently being used for generating both two and three dimensional spline curves. It was developed for use in ESCHER, a mesh generating routine written to provide a computationally simple and efficient method for building meshes along curved surfaces. Circle Spline is a parametric linear blending spline. Because many computerized machining operations involve circular shapes, the Circle Spline is well suited for both the design and manufacturing processes and shows promise as an alternative to the spline methods currently supported by the Initial Graphics Specification (IGES)

Non-Price Competition in “Substitute Drugs: The FTC\u27s Blind Spot

As the recent case of United States v. Lundbeck illustrates, the Federal Trade Commission’s lack of knowledge in medical and pharmacological sciences affects its evaluation of transactions between medical and pharmaceutical companies that involve transfers of rights to manufacture or sell drugs, causing the agency to object to such transactions without solid basis for doing so. This article argues that in order to properly define a pharmaceutical market, one must not just consider the condition that competing drugs are meant to treat, but also take into account whether there are “off-label” drugs that are used to treat a relevant condition, whether drugs actually compete with each other on price or whether they are selected based on their side-effects (or lack thereof), mechanism of action, physician knowledge, and other noneconomic considerations, and finally whether the drugs in question enjoy any patent or nonpatent-based exclusivity that prevents generic manufacturers from entering the market

1st Annual Sawyer Walker Scholarship

The Sawyer Walker Scholarship is for high school seniors entering college in county’s surrounding Mount Gilead to include Morrow County, Crawford County, and Marion County. The committee and I handed out and posted flyers in our surrounding areas. We also created a Facebook page in Sawyer Walker\u27s memory portraying the Scholarship and events. We used the site to invite friends and family and to share the event. This is how we let people know when the event was, what was needed, and provided updates. We also used the Facebook to send official invites to the event. We sought donations from friends, families, businesses and the community. At the event, there was a live auction, a silent auction, a 50/50 raffle, and a pasta dinner. At the door people paid for the dinner and had an opportunity to buy many memorabilia items including a t-shirt honoring Sawyer\u27s memory. All proceeds were donated to the scholarship fund; however, the 50/50 raffle funds were shared equally between the scholarship fund and the winner of the raffle. We successfully raised $12,000 at the first annual Sawyer Walker scholarship event. In the future we plan to have more events throughout the year and not just an annual auction. We are also looking for a different venue for next year\u27s auction to provide for better seating and a larger attendance. The Sawyer Walker Scholarship fund has not only supported education but also keeps the memory of Sawyer Walker alive

Non-Price Competition in “Substitute Drugs: The FTC\u27s Blind Spot

As the recent case of United States v. Lundbeck illustrates, the Federal Trade Commission’s lack of knowledge in medical and pharmacological sciences affects its evaluation of transactions between medical and pharmaceutical companies that involve transfers of rights to manufacture or sell drugs, causing the agency to object to such transactions without solid basis for doing so. This article argues that in order to properly define a pharmaceutical market, one must not just consider the condition that competing drugs are meant to treat, but also take into account whether there are “off-label” drugs that are used to treat a relevant condition, whether drugs actually compete with each other on price or whether they are selected based on their side-effects (or lack thereof), mechanism of action, physician knowledge, and other noneconomic considerations, and finally whether the drugs in question enjoy any patent or nonpatent-based exclusivity that prevents generic manufacturers from entering the market

Resolving the Original Sin of Bolling v. Sharpe

On May 17, 1954 the Supreme Court handed down two decisions that for the first time categorically held that racial segregation in public schools was per se unlawful – Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharpe. Ostensibly, both cases dealt with a same question; however, in Brown the entity accused of discrimination was a creature of the State of Kansas, while in Bolling the discrimination was practiced by the federal government. The problem that the Supreme Court faced was the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, by its own terms, guaranteed “equal protection of the laws” only vis-à-vis states and not the federal government. The Supreme Court recognized as much in Bolling, but ruled segregation illegal in the District of Columbia anyway. Bolling is now universally recognized as reaching an unquestionably correct result as a policy and moral matter. This recognition makes it all the harder for the adherents of originalism to defend their preferred approach to constitutional interpretation. Originalists are forced to concede that the Constitution, interpreted as originally understood, did not impose equal protection restraints on the federal government, and therefore, Bolling, in imposing these norms where they were not meant to be, was wrongly decided. Recognizing the political (and moral) problem with this approach, originalists have simply attempted to waive the problem away. The problem is that at least in the popular perception “[a] theory of constitutional interpretation that cannot account for Brown [and Bolling] is suspect if not discredited.” Some scholars, Robert Bork and Randy Barnett amongst them, have argued that although Bolling is indefensible as an originalist matter, this is not a real problem. According to them, even if Bolling were overruled no major problems would arise, if for no other reason than the federal government is politically constrained from running segregated schools or otherwise discriminating on the basis of race. This proposition is both dubious as a factual matter (or at the very least was so when Bolling was decided), and is unsatisfactory as a political matter. The general public is simply unlikely to buy into a judicial theory that would permit the federal government to discriminate at will on the basis of race. Accordingly, if originalism is to be broadly accepted by the public without being undermined by the discussion of Bolling and Brown, one needs to come up with a plausible explanation of how the results (if not the rationale) in those two cases can be supported under an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. In this Article I argue that Bolling is justifiable as an originalist matter if one properly interprets the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Properly understood, the clause was meant to protect not just a right to a passport or nationality, but a much broader right of equal participation in the civic life of the Nation. The term “citizen” was understood by the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment to encompass a wide scope of political rights, including a right to equality before the law. When viewed from that perspective, it becomes apparent that Bolling was correctly decided not only from the political perspective, but from legal originalist one as well

The Great Writ of Incoherence: An Analysis of Supreme Court\u27s Rulings On Enemy Combatants

On June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court released its much awaited decisions in the cases posing a challenge to the Executive\u27s self-professed authority to detain and indefinitely hold individuals designated as enemy combatants. The cases arose from the war on terrorism that was launched after the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. When each decision is looked at individually, the result seems to make sense and, given the outcome (affording detainees rights of judicial review), feels good. Yet when these decisions are looked at collectively, it is hard to believe that they were issued by the same complement of Justices, much less on the same day. Moreover, when the decisions rendered on June 28, 2004, are read in concert with previous decisions dealing with the habeas corpus rights of non-citizen detainees, the legal landscape becomes quite muddled. This Article seeks to show inconsistencies in the three Enemy Combatant Cases, as well as the potentially catastrophic interaction of these cases with Zadvydas v. Davis, a case decided in 2001. Part II of this Article describes the historical and political background of these cases and summarizes the Supreme Court\u27s opinion in each case. Part III points out the tension between these decisions and suggests that it is impossible for all three to be implemented as written. Part IV addresses the far-reaching implications of Rasul v. Bush on the present and future military operations and argues that that decision has the potential to wreak havoc on the military\u27s ability to effectively detain and interrogate terrorists and prisoners of war (POWs). Part V addresses the interaction of Rasul and Zadvydas and suggests that if the decisions are meant to be read in concert, they may require a highly implausible result of releasing individuals whom the military considers to be dangerous into the very country that these individuals wish to destroy. Part VI proposes a restricted construction on these decisions so as to limit the potential damage that these decisions can cause. The Article concludes its analysis in Part VII