Christopher Columbus :: Christopher Columbus Essays

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Christopher Columbus was an Italian navigator who sailed west across the Atlantic Ocean in search for the all-water route to Asia, but instead achieved fame for making landfall in the Caribbean Sea. Columbus' plan was based in part on two major miscalculations. First, he underestimated the circumference of the world by about 25 per cent. Columbus also mistakenly believed that most of the world consisted of land rather than water. This mistake led him to conclude that Asia extended much farther east than it actually did. In 1492, Columbus embarked on his first voyage. Queen Isabella of Spain ordered that the port of Palos supply him with three ships the Pinta, the Nina, and the Santa Maria. A total of about 90 crew members sailed aboard the three ships. In addition to the officers and sailors, the expedition included a translator, three physicians, a servant for each captain, a secretary, and an accountant. On October 12, 1492, at 2:00 in the morning he spouted a small island, which he called San Salvador. In January, the Santa Maria was wrecked off the coast of Espanola. The Nina, with Columbus in command, along with the Pinta began the homeward voyage in January 1493. The storms drove the ships first to the Azores and then to Lisbon, Columbus arrived in Palos, Spain, in March. He was enthusiastically received by the Spanish Monarchs. Columbus planned immediately for a second expedition, with about 1500 men, which left Spain in September 1493. They landed on the island of Dominica, Gaudeloupe. His stop at Puerto Rico is the closest he came to setting foot on land that would later form part of the United States, the main foundation for the claim that Columbus â€Å"discovered America.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When Columbus returned to Queen Isabella on September 29, he found that serious conflicts had developed among the colonists, a number of whom were already on the route to Spain to press their grievances. One of the major problems confronting Columbus was the hostility of the natives, whose initial friendliness had been alienated by the cruelty of the Europeans. Columbus defeated the natives in battle in March 1495 and shipped a large number of them to Spain to sell as slaves. Queen Isabella objected, however, and the survivors were returned. A royal investigating commission arrived at Isabella in October 1495. Because this group was consistently critical of his policies, Columbus established a new capital named Santo Domingo.

Unattainable Equaility Depicted in Carson McCullerss Sucker Essay exam

Anomalies in Equality Equality is something that people have been fighting for for a long time, but is it really the answer to prejudice and pride? In the story "Sucker" Pete and Sucker live together like brothers, but their relationship does not reflect that. Pete treats Sucker like property, instead of a person. The distance between them that is a result of Pete’s mistreatment of Sucker is eventually closed by a period of peace, a short time when they both discover each other and begin to function together in a loving and brotherly way. This balance is soon broken by an outburst of Pete’s. The fight causes Sucker to give up passionately following Pete and rethink their relationship. Suckers revelation leads him to become a more sociable person. Sucker trusted Pete to a fault, the fight is the solution to Suckers gullibility and mindless following because it forces him to grow up and away from his childhood idol, Pete. When looking at the situation briefly, it seems the answer is equality . Equality seems to solve Pete’s mistreatment and dominance over Sucker, and it would also prevent Suckers great change and the permanent tension between sucker and Pete that resulted. But is equality a solution, or a problem all its own? The cause and the solution to his problems both start with the mistreatment of Sucker and his inferiority to Pete. Pete is dominant over Sucker. Pete and Sucker live together as if they are brothers, but they do not act as if they are. There is no equality in their relationship, Sucker is treated like a dog, and Pete acts like his cruel master. "Whenever I would bring any of my friends back to my room, all I would need to do was just glance once at Sucker and he would get up from whatever he was busy... ...was perfect equality then your choices would not influence your life, because nothing is better than anything else. Life would become shallow and unfulfilling. Humanity needs someone to love and someone to hate. Is there such a thing as equality? Can you truly look at a person and say they are your equal, or are we too judgmental? No, as humans we are doomed to see the flaws in others and ourselves. The only way to truly have equality is to either have perfection, or to discard individuality all together. Seeing flaws is the only way to improve both ourselves, and others. To have equality is to sacrifice progress. Someone has to be the weak one. Without weakness there is no basis for strength. Without flaws there is no preference, and without preference there is no love. Life would become shallow and unfulfilling. Humanity needs someone to love and someone to hate.

Machiavelli - The Prince :: essays research papers

The Prince, one of the most popular and well known doctrines of political thought was also one of the greatest works of Niccolà ³ Machiavelli. First published in 1513, The Prince was written in response to the failure of the Greek-based Italian city-states. Machiavelli wrote The Prince because, despite being a firm Republican, he was also well-documented as a strong patriot. He wanted that his people live under a free but effective government, but he decided that if his nation has to be ruled by a despotic form of government that he would rather have it be a strong yet merciful tyranny. He wasn’t paid for writing The Prince, it wasn’t even originally a book, but a series of letters to the Prince Lorenzo de Medici. He wrote it during exile, after he had been arrested and tortured by Medici’s people, so it is doubtful that they had a bountiful relationship. Machiavelli’s intent, it would seem to the naked eye, was not to taunt the Prince, but to give him advice about how to survive on the throne and to also keep the dynasty in his family after his death. It appeared that he wanted to help the Prince to keep the nation free from invasion and occupation and also how to handle internal problems; such as when to bribe, oppress, cajole etc… Machiavelli’s real objective in writing The Prince was far different from the words that are found composed by him. The letters from Machiavelli to the Prince of Florence were not messages of suggestion as much as they were a job application for a place in his dynasty. The actual ambition of Machiavelli was to use this political hypocrisy to promote his own good. He was a firm believer that one should give the people what they want in order to earn their support and respect. Then, once in the public’s good graces, to use your authority, position and support to promote and complete your own agenda, political or otherwise, as long as it would eventually benefit the good of the people. He was a believer that anything can be justified as long as the results in for the common good. Machiavelli used this idea to coin his most well known phrase, “the end justifies the means.'; He explains that is it necessary to appear to be a lovely moral person, but in reality, to act “as necessity dictates'; and this allows lying, perjury and other immoral acts as long as the overall intent and final product is for the Common Benefit.

Motivation theory Essay

These two theories, Theory X and Theory Y were proposed by Douglas McGregor in the 1960’s and are basically these theories are related to motivation and they describe different types of attitudes towards workforce motivation. The creator of this theory believes that every organization adopts one of the two theories. According to Theory X, it is assumed that the employees working in the organization are lazy as they dislike work and so they avoid work and due to this they need close supervision control of their leader and due to this the structure of the hierarchy is narrow. Another important thing about this theory is that employees are less ambitious and so they need various incentives to make them work and they have to be forced to do their work. People need to be directed and controlled as they themselves are not eager to take accountability. Theory X can be used in organizations where employees work in the areas of mass manufacturing or production where the management style used is authoritarian. A mistake of Theory X is that it is likely to cause diseconomies of scale to occur in organizations especially those that are large in size. Theory Y is somewhat opposite to theory X and according to Theory Y, it is believed that the employees are self-motivated and they do not need to be controlled to make them do work as they believe that work is natural and they are against control and punishments to be used to make the people work. However, job satisfaction plays a vital role and ensures commitment of the employees towards the organization and they learn to accept responsibility unlike theory X. The creativity in the employees make them accomplish their goals and solve problems and this theory can be adopted by professionals and the management style used is participative. Work Cited 12Manage. (n. d. ). Theory X Theory Y (McGregor). May 7th, 2009. Retrieved from:

Impressionism and Earth Art

Impressionism and Earth Art When one hears the term Impressionism or Earth Art, one can already presume and expect what sort of depiction each movement would present without having any prior knowledge of them. Impressionism, which began in the sass's, often depicted scenes and the artists' impression of nature and, modest yet vivacious quarters of Paris. Now almost exactly one hundred years later, a completely new form of art takes the place of the prior paintings of those subject matters, actually inside -called Earth Art. In France, 1875, a new genre of painting began to emerge.These paintings demonstrated a fleeting outcome of colors. Impressionists aimed to capture that immediate moment of their subjects which provided a sense of spontaneity. These sudden bursts of color and light had taken the public by surprise -who had adapted to observing rather conservative, academic paintings with somber shades of colors. It was the first most dramatic change in style, expression and revolu tionized painting throughout Europe and eventually the world. For Earth artists, they all had similar objectives as well.It was now taking their imaginations to the outdoors as well as raise awareness towards the environment. This form of art is almost like three- emotional version of Impressionism landscape pieces, but with a more defined arrangement and form. Earth artists made of use of the materials the landscapes offered such as dirt and rocks. The leaders of their respective movements, Claude Monet and Robert Smithson both began completely new eras of art. Claude Monet started off as a realist and Robert Smithson started as a conceptual artist.Monet wanted to create an impression of what he saw and defied the norms of realistic, bibliographic paintings. The thickness and low consistency of his oil paints allowed him to dramatically express his impression of his subject matter. His paintings mainly consist of landscapes, water lilies in particular. Smithson also took the initia tive to start something completely new. Smithson pieces were meant to gradually perish through time and nature. It was a theme throughout all his works, whether it was his art or his writing -the theme of time.Smithson aimed and successfully displayed the delicateness of nature in such a commercial environment. In 1873, Motet's pieces entitled Impression; Sunrise initiated the spark which would soon become Impressionism. Louis Leroy, the critic, declared this painting incomplete, that it was solely a sketch of Motet's impression and this resulted in the hole movement being coined by this piece. Monet conveys vague forms through his short, natural brushstrokes of his oil paints. The constant altering of light and color are effectively represented through the shadows and contrasting of the pure colors.This piece, Spiral Jetty (1970), is already exceptional in a sense that there is no exact set way to observe it. From afar, from above, up close, each different view gives off a differen t sensation. Smithson implements the use of black basalt, limestone rocks, dirt and the earth itself to create this seemingly effortless spiral. It is a staggering Engel of 1,600 feet, smoothly extending into Salt Lake City, Utah. Both pieces use a body of water as the foreground, but different focal points. Motet's piece has a dark boat figure and bright sun which contrasts the more composed shades of green, blues and yellows.Spiral Jetty doesn't necessarily contrast greatly color-wise but in form. The elongated, linear movement of the spiral with a Jagged texture is distinct from the uniformity of the ocean. Initially looking at the two pieces, Haystacks, Morning Snow Effect and Spiral Hill, there is already a similarity in form of the central objects. The haystack and the hill ACH have a trilateral shape and upward motion. Smithson evidently creates circular motion up the hill. Often through the use of circular motion and shapes, he demonstrates his theme of time, the chronologic al cycle.Through Motet's piece, he also embraces the notion of time but more so of a moment in time. Although the brushstrokes of the oil paints are rather rough, the softness of the colors and contrasts emit the serenity of a winter morning. The appropriate choices of colors, the soft yellows, blues and grey, capture the essence of the bitter cold winter morning but also the warmth of a morning sun. The murky cast shadow of the haystack illustrates the progression and movement of the sunrise. This atmosphere in Motet's painting clearly depicted and established whereas Smithson piece is transposable.Depending on the time and day at Men, Holland, the weather can alter the impression it imprints. Wet, gloomy weather versus a warm summer day, each produce a different foreground. Rain or snow, along with the black soil and white sand that Smithson utilized for this piece, can affect the color and shade of the materials as well as the texture. Though Claude Monet and Robert Smithson idea s are a century apart, they both had significant effect on society and the history of art. Their contributions and efforts lead art history to keep moving to what it is today.

Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus Essay

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein or Modern Prometheus (1831) is considered as one of the oldest yet significantly popularized literature that symbolizes the tandem of Victor Frankenstein and the Creature. The horrendous creation, Frankenstein –the Modern Prometheus, is used to symbolize Mary Shelley’s time period wherein men are continuously advancing the level of possible knowledge present in their society. From the scientist Victor Frankenstein to the monster named as the Creature, Shelley creates an innovative argument that illustrates the trends of the progressive industrialization in European countries. Shelley’s Frankenstein involves with the societal dilemma of men’s overreaching efforts against the limitations of science and Mother Nature by initiating actions to dehumanize the conception of life. II. Brief Summary Shelley’s Frankenstein had give birth to physically deformed being with the sensations and needs similar to a human being. After abandoning his creation due to its horrendous look, Victor, the creature’s creator, heard the occurrence of death of his brother William. Frankenstein blamed the monster for his brother’s death, which further advanced to the death of his fiance – Elizabeth Lavenza. Victor tried to avenge the deaths of his beloved; however, he was not able succeed. By the end of the story, Victor felt very ill and eventually died. Walton found the monster after the death of Victor mourning the death of his creator. III. Judgment and Evaluation In Shelly’s version of Frankenstein, there were two essential literary implications that illustrate the purpose of the story: (1) the symbolism of men’s progressive scientific revolution and (1) concluding the outcomes of industrial revolution. IV. Support In the first argument, Shelley illustrates Vincent Frankenstein as the portrayal of men’s over-exceeding desire of power. Shelley utilized the role of Victor to illustrate the capacity of knowledge to violate the concept of life. Furthermore, Shelly even illustrated the possibilities of breaking the limitations of men over the godly and mortal realms. One of Shelley’s influential inspirations in the novel of Frankenstein was John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667) wherein the character of god was referred to role of â€Å"the victor†, which defined as â€Å"the triumphant one, the winner, the ruler. † Meanwhile, Frankenstein was patterned from Milton’s lonesome illustration of Victor; hence, he became subdued by the hopes of creating a companion through science. â€Å"Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow (Shelley, 53). † In the second argument, Frankenstein also symbolized the social trends and the prevailing concepts of the European society during its scientific revolutionary age. Frankenstein illustrated the modern anxieties and fears about the possible outcomes of industrialization and science, and their impacts on ethics and morals of human. In the 18th century, readers considered Shelly’s Frankenstein as an allegorical illustration of ethical nature versus industrialization and scientific revolution.

Boy Scouts of America

This controversial First Amendment case was heard by the United States Supreme Court in 2000, on appeal from New Jersey’s Superior Court. The dispute arose between the Boy Scouts of America, specifically a New Jersey troop, and a man named James Dale. Dale was an adult Boy Scout and a troop leader in New Jersey. He was also openly homosexual and a gay rights activist. The Boy Scouts were not aware of Dale’s sexual orientation until he attended a seminar that dealt with the needs of homosexual teenagers which was covered by a local newspaper.When the Boy Scouts discovered that Dale was in fact a homosexual, they kicked him out of the organization, claiming that his sexual orientation directly opposed the values they wished to instill in the young members of their group. Dale filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court. He asserted that when the Boy Scouts revoked his membership, they violated New Jersey law. That law forbids discrimination based on a person’s sexu al orientation in places of public accommodations. The Court ruled in favor of Dale. The Boy Scouts however, believed that their constitutional right of expressive association had been violated.That First Amendment right allows organizations with selective membership standards to forbid membership to anyone who does not meet those standards. The Boy Scouts appealed the judgment to federal court. At the Supreme Court, the decision of the state court was overturned, ruling in favor of the Boy Scouts. The Court provided that the Boy Scouts were selective in accepting members into the organization since they only accept boys over the age of ten, and therefore the group had only practiced their First Amendment right of expressive association.Furthermore, the scout oath illustrated the group’s opposition to homosexual behavior. When members say the oath, they promise to keep themselves â€Å"morally clean†. Alongside the membership standards, the oath essentially won the cas e. This case, while controversial, was decided correctly. The freedom to associate allows groups to gather for any purpose. The freedom of speech allows those groups to speak of their ideas. Freedom of expression is really only a combination of the two. The First Amendment protects groups from being forced to admit members who directly defy their purposes.The same would have applied no matter the group in question. Imagine if the NAACP was forced to admit a man who openly expressed hatred toward African Americans, or a group meant for veterans that was forced to admit an anti-war advocate. This type of forced inclusion into the organization would really disrupt the business of the group. Sometimes, it would make the group pointless altogether. Most likely we would not see membership refusals such as those mentioned as a case of discrimination. It is simply a conflict of interest.The Supreme Court’s decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale is extremely relevant to society as a whole, especially to those individuals who are members of certain organizations who practice selective membership standards. No one wants to attend a church that was forced to hire an atheist preacher. No little girl wants to show up to her Girl Scout meeting to find that a little boy has become her fellow scout. As individuals, we like to surround ourselves with people who share similar qualities and characteristics with us.We enjoy gathering with others who share our opinions and purposes. Had the Supreme Court ruled differently in this case, this type of activity could easily be considered discriminatory and punishable by law. While the decision was unfortunate for James Dale, it upheld the Boy Scouts’ constitutional rights, and protected society’s rights as well. In the article, Police in Gun Searches Face Disbelief in Court, New York Times reporter Benjamin Weiser discusses the growing trend of unconstitutional searches conducted by police officers in May of 200 8.One such illegal search happened in New York to a man who was carrying a pistol. In court, the officers involved testified that they had just cause to search the suspect. They claimed, â€Å"He was loitering, sweating nervously and had a bulge under his jacket† (Weiser). The judge however, found that the officers’ story was untrue, and that they had searched the man illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment. Since the gun could not be used as evidence, the case was thrown out. Weiser’s research indicates that this type of situation occurs more often than we might think.He provides that in the last six years there have been twenty similar cases in New York City alone, where police officers unconstitutionally searched suspects, often resulting in the release of criminals who illegally carry firearms (Weiser). The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from search and seizure without probable cause, and this includes searches for weapons by police officers. The fact that these particular officers violated the Fourth Amendment is unfortunate, because their behavior put criminals back onto the streets.However, there was nothing that the judges that heard the cases could do, because the Bill of Rights applies to all Americans, criminals included. While society might prefer that the Fourth Amendment not apply to criminal suspects, the Constitution was meant to protect all people. It would be unfair to be searched without cause, especially if a suspect was not carrying an illegal weapon. The amendment is important in that it protects every aspect of our personal lives.Without it, the police could barge into our homes and take anything that they wanted, confiscate our cars, or seize anything we carry with us, activities that certainly do not constitute a free democracy. In the article, A Witness Startles Court in Pellicano Trial, New York Times reporter David Halbfinger tells the story of a witness â€Å"pleading the fifth† in a Los Angeles c ourt room in April of 2008. The trial was that of Anthony Pellicano, a private eye accused of wiretapping on behalf of his rich and famous clients.During cross examination, witness Phyllis Miller was asked questions about her own involvement in the case. A lawyer got her to admit that she was guilty of a crime herself. After a number of questions were asked, of which she responded to, Miller refused to answer any more self incriminating questions, pleading the fifth. However, the responses she did give now have her facing charges of her own of perjury and fraud. The Fifth Amendment deals with double jeopardy, the due process of the law, and the testimony witnesses in trial.Specifically stating that no person, â€Å"shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself† (Cornell University Law School). This amendment protects individuals from being forced to testify during their own trials, which might lead to a guilty verdict. The Fifth Amendment is very rel evant to society, in that it not only protects us from being charged multiple times for the same crime, but also allows us to keep quiet when we are on trial ourselves. Imagine a guilty man on trial forced to testify truthfully about a murder he committed.Most likely his answers would not be honest anyway, so why ask him to talk at all? Furthermore, imagine his wife testifying about what happened on the night of the crime. If the woman is asked questions about her involvement which might lead to a trial of her own, it is unfair to force her to speak. The Fifth Amendment in its entirety is important for Americans, because it deals with the protection of our personal lives and liberties. Being forced to testify as a witness to another person’s trial should not mean that we to be put on trial.In the article, Washington Mayor to Take Fight for Gun Law to Supreme Court, New York Times reporter Adam Liptak discusses a controversial gun control law out of Washington D. C.. That very strict law made carrying a gun, even two feet in your own home, illegal if you are not licensed to do so. The law was taken to Court and deemed unconstitutional. The mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian M. Fenty, disagreed with the Court’s decision and challenged it in the United States Court of Appeals in May of 2007.The Court however, refused to retry the case, claiming it was within the limits of the Bill of Rights, so Mayor Fenty planned to take the case to the Supreme Court in July of 2007. Liptak asserted in the article that it was his belief that the Supreme Court would agree to hear the case (Liptak). The Second Amendment, which has always been very controversial, protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms (Cornell University Law School). Many people believe that by limiting the rights allowed by the Second Amendment, violent crime rates would decrease.Still others want to keep their constitutional right to carry guns regardless of crime. The Se cond Amendment is very relevant in today’s society. In a world filled with criminals and violence, we deserve to have the means to protect ourselves, especially when many criminals carry illegal guns themselves. Imagine a robber breaking into your home in the middle of the night with a gun of his own. Most Americans would feel much safer if they had a gun to protect not only their families, but their property as well.Many people feel that by enacting gun control laws, we are putting ourselves at risk since many criminals own guns illegally anyway. The Constitution was written as a means of protecting certain civil liberties, one of which is life. Without the Second Amendment, we have no means of protecting our lives against the violent criminals who wish to hurt or kill us. In the article, National Briefing: South, South Carolina: Appeal to Supreme Court, the Associated Press introduces readers to the case of an imprisoned teenager in South Carolina.The teenager, who at the a ge of twelve brutally murdered his grandparents and burned down their home in 2001, was sentenced to thirty years in prison for his crime. At his trial, his lawyers claimed that his crime was a result of a medication he was taking at the time, Zoloft. When the boy was found guilty, and the sentence was announced, his lawyers planned to take the case to the Supreme Court for violating the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment protects Americans from cruel and unusual punishment, excessive fines, and excessive bail (Cornell University School of Law).Meaning that, certain crimes should not be punished with extreme sentences, huge bail amounts, or an unreasonable amount of years in prison. For a case such as described above, the punishment seems most reasonable and most likely the teenager will remain in prison. However, sometimes criminals are punished excessively for the scope of their crimes. The Eighth Amendment is very relevant in today’s society, because it protects us fro m being punished to greatly for a small crime. Imagine being given the death penalty for a parking violation.Obviously a punishment such as this would be a violation of the Bill of Rights, and should be. However, without the Eighth Amendment things such as this could happen all the time. We could serve ten years in prison for stealing a piece of bubble gum from the candy store, or be arrested for failure to pay a speeding ticket and have bail set at a million dollars. This type of punishment would be unfair, excessive, cruel, and most definitely unusual. The Eighth Amendment only protects us from such unfair treatment, and therefore is very important in a country built on fairness and freedom.Reflection Honestly, the Bill of Rights is probably the most important part of the Constitution. It protects our freedoms and rights from being taken away from us, and since our country was built on that foundation, it is important that we retain our personal rights. I do not really believe tha t any one of the first ten amendments is more important than the others, but it seems that the First Amendment is the one that is violated the most often. It also seems to be the one amendment that Americans value the most out of the ten.Without the First Amendment, should one of the others be violated, we might not have the right to speak up about it in the first place. I also think that the Eighth Amendment is very critical to our country. In other countries people are thrown in prison and put to death for doing silly crimes and that is wrong. The writers of the Bill of Rights were very clever to include this amendment because it protects us from being treated inhumanly. Overall, I think that all of the first ten amendments work together to protect our rights and freedoms, and thankfully they are usually obeyed.From this assignment I have learned a lot. I have always known that the Bill of Rights is important, but I never realized how often it is violated on an individual basis. A s a citizen of the United States, I am grateful for the rights I have been given by the Constitution. Many citizens of other countries are not so lucky, and I am afraid that many Americans take these rights for granted. I also did not realize how often new amendments are proposed, and moreover, how irrelevant some of the proposed can be. From my research I learned of one amendment meant to define and protect marriage between a man and a woman.It is very interesting to me what some people consider a personal right. I think that without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution itself would be very vague. Since it speaks of certain civil liberties, it was only logical to list those liberties within the document. When we govern by and enforce the Constitution, we are guaranteed these most important rights and freedoms, which make America a country that is privileged and different from most others across the globe. Thankfully our founding fathers envisioned a nation that was democratic and f ree.Therefore, the Bill of Rights is incredibly valuable to our country and the rights and freedoms that we are given, because without it we might not have understood exactly what America was meant to be. I can honestly say that I learned a lot by working through this project, and I think that all students in the United States should have to do similar work to appreciate what they have. Works Cited The Associated Press, â€Å"National Briefing South; South Carolina: Appeal to Supreme Court. † The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008 . Cornell University Law School, â€Å"Bill of Rights. † Constitution. 2008. Cornell University Law School. 14 May 2008 . Halbfinger, David. â€Å"A Witness Startles Court in Pellican Trial. † The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008 . Liptak, Adam. â€Å"Washington Mayor to Take Fight for Gun Law to Supreme Court. † The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008. Renquist, â€Å"Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. , Petitioners v. James Dale . † Findlaw for Legal Professionals. 2008. The United States Supreme Court. 13 May 2008 . Weiser, Benjamin. â€Å"Police in Gun Searches Face Disbelief in Court. † The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008 .