Benny Baker
-
Posts
1,129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Benny Baker
-
-
I get what you are getting at . . . and I am not sure!! If you think about it, even the repeal law will likely be unconstitutional if Carlson's law is found to be, given that the repeal law is telling UND it has to wait 3 years. If the legislature can't tell you to keep the nickname, it can't tell you to wait 3 years before adopting another one.
Bottomline-->I need to see the filings.
Peace out ss.com!!!
Filings?
-
However, the "efficient and economical administration" part may win the day also. How? To put together an independent schedule in football means lots and lots of big dollar guarantees. Doing what is necessary to stay off NCAA sanction make scheduling costs drop dramatically and allows for the potential of post-season home game revenues.
I think this is the best argument out there. But I question the slippery slope. A lot of the legislature's decisions will affect UND economically.
-
The "tremendous power grab" of which you complain was launched by Clueless Al. The Board is merely trying to defend its constitutional turf.
Yup, the argument goes both ways depending on whether one's views side with the legislature or executive branch. It would be a bit naive to say that this isn't tremendous when a lawsuit has been filled directly with the North Dakota Supreme Court. With that said, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that the SBHE has no lawmaking power and that the Board is an administrative body. You guys can cite the constitutional language all you want. But some of you really need to start reading the Supreme Court's case law (binding precedent) that is interpreting those very provisions.
-
If you didn't hear Schlossman on "Dizzo's Den" last night you missed Brad saying that he's never heard Hak say something he didn't believe in and that Hak would say nothing before saying something he didn't believe in.
I think Brad is the most thorough beat writer in college hockey, but he is, for lack of a better word, a bit of a UND propagandist. Danny Kristo, Gregiore's decision to turn pro, etc. But with that said, I believe Hakstol was telling the truth.
-
Tremendous power grab? Choosing a nickname is a tremendous power grab?
Absolutely. In fact, it is so tremendous that the SBHE has filed a lawsuit directly to our state's highest court in order to retire that very nickname, which is what you want, isn't it?
-
15-10-11. Authority and general powers of board.
The state board of higher education has full authority over the institutions under its control
with the right to prescribe, limit, or modify the courses offered at the several institutions. In
furtherance of its powers, the board has the power to delegate to its employees details of the
administration of the institutions under its control. The board has authority to organize or
reorganize, within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each institution under its
control, and to do everything necessary and proper for the efficient and economical
administration thereof.
I'm just hung up on the "statutory limitations" part.
Part of your argument will depend on what the NCAA accepts as a new or "new" logo and nickname. UND can use the interlocking ND logo and the name "UND or North Dakota" according to the 3 year moratorium because they were implemented and used before that moratorium was put in place. If the NCAA accepts them as new because they are different from the Fighting Sioux name and Brien logo, then that fulfills the settlement agreement. Both sides could be satisfied and the problem solved. Again, the aim of the settlement and the reason for the NCAA policy are to eliminate the use of Native American nicknames and imagery. The NCAA is happy when that is accomplished.
good points.
-
If the original law, Carlson's Folly, is deemed unconstitutional, would it not seem that ruling would also make the repeal law of Carlson's Folly unconstitutional also?
If the NDSC finds the Legislature had no business making monikers because they have no power over monikers, that would seem to apply to making, unmaking, and not making, wouldn't it?
President Kelley had already answered the logo and nickname questions: the logo is the interlocked ND and the nickname is "UND" or "North Dakota" for the time being. (Remember: the NCAA views schools by formal name, in this case the University of North Dakota, so either UND or North Dakota works as a "nickname".)
I'll definitely take your word for it regarding President Kelly, the interlocking ND, etc., but it's a fact that this breaks the repeal law, which prohibits the adoption and use of any nickname for three years. The settlement agreement specifically requires UND to adopt a new nickname. UND can't comply with both at the same time. Either they break the law and adopt a new nickname or follow the law and breach the settlement.
As for the constitutional questions, are you saying it's unconstitutional now because of a separation of powers issue or because of the contracts clause? If the latter, than I see what you mean. Everyone seems sure that the SBHE will win on the contract clause. I honestly do not see how they win on a separation of powers issue. The Supreme Court has said multiple times that the SBHE is an administrative body of the executive branch with no legislative power. The Supreme Court has found legislation unconstitutional where the legislature delegates lawmaking power to the SBHE. When it was created, the SBHE adopted all the powers of the Board of Administration. The Board of Administration did not have control over or change UND's nickname to the "Fighting Sioux" in 1930, so history even shows that "moniker" authority does not lie with the SBHE. Two years ago, Justice Kapsner wrote a dissent saying the SBHE has absolutely no legislature power and that the SBHE's constitutional authority it limited by statute. Nickname proponents only need one more justice.
I think the contracts clause is a better argument. Still doubt they will win because the Supreme Court has already said that there is no longer a contract between the parties. The legal status of the settlement agreement is now a court judgment. The Supreme Court says they will enforce it as a court judgment. There has never been a Court in the United States, of which I am aware, that has found a law to violate the contract clause when it infringes on a court judgment. Secondly, I still think UND is complying with the judgment: "If UND does not adopt a new nickname or logo . . . they will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the policy."
-
They were in full compliance with the settlement. The logo was the interlocking ND, and the name was North Dakota.
I know I'm probably a bad teacher, but you are rather helpless. I know that none of the parties were choosing to enforce the settlement, but lack of enforcement does not mean compliance. Look at the plain language of the statute and settlement. If UND does not adopt a "new nickname" then they are supposed to continue with sanctions under the settlement. The repeal bill prohibited the adoption of a "new nickname" and logo. You cannot reconcile the two. One cannot both follow the law, which prevents the school from adopting a new nickname, and follow the terms of the settlement, which requires adoption of a "new" nickname.
Whether the parties you listed choose to abide by the settlement, well that's another story. But it does go to show that the NCAA is not truly wound up in the specific terms of the settlement.
These are all facts. I'm sorry, but I can't help you any longer and you're unable to appreciate these facts.
-
The NCAA has also said that they would work with UND if they were making a good faith effort to live up to the settlement agreement and eliminating the Native American nickname and logo. There has been no official statement, but perhaps they have indicated that they would be OK with delaying the adoption of a new nickname and logo. As someone else said, all indications were that UND had been removed from the sanctions list after the law was repealed in November. Therefore there could have been some kind of understanding with the NCAA.
Good to know. Makes sense. But I just didn't think it was possible after so many people have said that the NCAA has taken a hard stance and won't back off the settlement agreement and sanctions under any circumstances. But I guess it is true that the NCAA is not 100% committed to enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement, either.
-
They were following the settlement up until Carlson's Folly. Then they were in breach of the settlement. When Carlson's Folly was repealed, the State Board again was in compliance with the settlement. Now that Carlson's Folly is once again in place, the State Board is once again in breach of the settlement with the NCAA.
To put it simply, the State Board has never voluntarily breached the contractual agreements put forth in the NCAA settlement. The state legislature has, however.
You're not understanding. In order to comply with the explicit terms of the settlement, UND needs to "adopt a new nickname." The absence of a nickname is a per se violation of the settlement agreement. SBHE is a named party, the legislature is not; therefore, SBHE is in breach. However, whether it be the legislature or SBHE, it is a distinction without a difference.
-
UND was not subject to sanctions over the last two months while using the interlocking ND and the vanilla North Dakota reference.................
Funny how that works. SBHE will use tax power money to righteously enforce the very same settlement agreement that they have no intention of following.
-
My hope is the AG presents both Carlson's Folly and the law repealing it as both being unconstitutional and both to be voided by the NDSC.
Can't. The repeal law is no longer a law. Who on Earth has standing to challenge the constitutionality of an idea, which is no longer the law? The'y have to wait til June.
-
The logo is the interlocking ND. The name is North Dakota..............
Can't, we'll have a repeal law on the books, which forbids adoption of any new nickname. The settlement agreement is explicit: "if UND does not adopt a new nickname . . . then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the policy."
-
My hope is the AG presents both Carlson's Folly and the law repealing it as both being unconstitutional and both to be voided by the NDSC.
How do you propose that UND comply with the settlement agreement? According to its terms, UND needs to adopt a new nickname and logo, otherwise the state is in breach.
-
So if the Supreme Court finds the law unconstitutional because of the contract clause what happens with the unconstitutional repeal law? The repeal law places a moratorium on a new nickname for three years while the holy grail settlement agreement mandates that “UND will announce that its Athletic Department will transition to a new nickname and logo which do not violate the Policy or rend UND subject to the Policy.”
In order to fix this, which way will we waste more of the public’s money: new constitutional lawsuit or a special legislative session? Anyone know of any other way the state could ensure that UND is in compliance with settlement agreement? Or perhaps the SBHE could adopt a new interim nickname come August . . . and then break the law shortly after crying foul on the legislature.
Even if the Court strikes down the pro-nickname law and the public still votes (the vote wouldn’t even happen anyway) “no” to keep the repeal law, we’re back at square one: we need a nickname in order to comply the settlement agreement. The same settlement agreement over which the SBHE plans to sue to ensure that very same level of compliance.
I’m sure the Supreme Court will enjoy making this ruling.
-
Most don't take Fullerton seriously, or just laugh, thats fine. At least I tried.
I assume you place one of Fullerton's own athletic directors in that category as well. I suppose Wanless could be a liar though.
-
In all fairness to John Chaske and the rest of the petition people, I agree with him "Who is really hurting the student athletes at UND? Where is the true source of this harm coming from? The real source of harm is the NCAA and its policies and sanctions against UND, not the Fighting Sioux name and symbol."
The problem with the statement is that — until he, his group, or a Federal court convinces the NCAA to change their stance — the harm is a foregone conclusion. All the wringing of hands and the gnashing of teeth in North Dakota is not going to change anything.
The change has to be accomplished in Indianapolis, IN.
Credited Response. There is nothing inherent within the logo or nickname that is hurting student-athletes at UND. (see North Dakota athletics from 1930-2005). It's the external reactions by other institutions---the NCAA's sanctions, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin's choice not to compete against UND.
-
For those that have been bagging on Coach Hakstol and saying he hasn't taken a stance on the nickname subejct, this is what the had coach had to say today on the nickname issue at the Wednesday Press Conference...
About time.
-
Your deep concern for fairness or equality on this issue isn't of any concern for the NCAA. They have a long term goal and they are slowly working toward it.
Clearly, did you really think I was trying to make a point to the NCAA by writing posts on an unofficial University of North Dakota athletic's message board? Come on, you're smarter than that . . . I think.
In terms of a long-term goal. I'd first say B.S. Seminoles, Fighting Irish, Chippewa, Ragin' Cajuns, Vikings, etc.---those are names that aren't going away. I know you may think that they are, but it's not going to happen. When the NCAA started this process in 2001, the only nicknames they considered were Native American based. Even if I were to agree with you about some alleged goal, I would really emphasize the word "slowly."
-
Every one of us......UND or NDSU fan......better be hoping the SBOHE prevails on this lawsuit. This is one of those occasions where UND and NDSU would be hurt by a ruling supporting Carlson and the assclowns in the legislature.
That is assuming you care about your entire University rather than just the Hockey program.......
Prevails on what grounds? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the tremendous power grab that the executive branch may come away with at the expense of the legislature rather than a university's nickname?
-
I don't really care what SR or SL do. If this issue is so important that 17,000 souls are willing to sign petitions that will endanger UND's viability at D1, why aren't they willing to make this an election issue for The Three Stooges, or those who want to be part of that triad? It would be pretty easy to "run against the NC$$", and you may actually find allies in Congress with their own grievances against the NC$$ to make an impact. Said it before, and I'll say it again:If anybody signs those petitions they should not vote for any incumbent this fall. Put your money and votes where your mouth is.
Agreed, but for all pratical purposes the NCAA spends a helluva lot more money lobbying Congress than those 17,000 people have in their bank accounts. I hate to sound like I'm spewing the OWS 1% stuff, but if someone like Rick Berg was really looking out for North Dakota and its institutions of higher education, then he should at least put some skin in this game. Whether he chooses to confront the NCAA or takes the position to retire the name is up to him. But if he truly has taken the position that he doesn't want to be involved, as some people suggest, well that's just kind of sad to hear from one of North Dakota's congressmen. Just my opinion.
-
I believe that was the intent of the NC$$, and it goes back to my original hypothesis from 2007: Losing the Sioux moniker was/is the implicit price for going D1 in all sports. I believe it's also why UND was saddled with the "two tribes' approval" provision. The NC$$ did not want that "hostile and abusive" logo showing up on ESPN or anywhere else where their hypocrisy would be on full display.
This, of course, says nothing about Florida State's NC$$-approved "rider" driving a lance into the ground at mid-field on ABC, ESPN, etc,
I've always wondered how the NCAA ensures the viewers' understanding of these important distinctions: the Fighting Sioux name is hostile and abusive but the Seminoles name is sufficient, the Bradley Braves are fine but the Alcorn State Braves face sanctions, and all the while, the North Carolina-Pembroke Braves were exempted before the policy even went into place.
Great policy you put in place there, guys!
-
In-state status quo you mean. In the rest of the world, the reality has changed. UND lives both in and out of the state.
I'm not sure what you mean or what your statement has to do with the Supreme Court's decision. For your reference, by status quo, I meant continuing use of the "Fighting Sioux" moniker which has been in place since the 1930s.
-
The SBoHE (part of the executive branch) has been granted certain administrative powers and authorities under the State constitution. Other branches of government can't violate those powers. The NDSC will determine if that has happened.
As far as drastic consequences, yes, there may be. We may end up back in the overly political realm where the Legislature micromanages the NDUS campuses. That gives Al Carlson and Rob Port extreme priapism when they ponder it.
Reasonable minds may certainly disagree. But I'm not convinced that that the Court will view the legislature's mere requirement of maintaining 70 years of the status quo as micromanaging when, all the while, the legislature has passed laws that cap the SBHE's yearly student fee increases down to a percentage point. I'd agree with you that the latter is micromanaging, but not the former. In other words, if the nickname legislation is unconstitutional because of it's alleged encroachment of the SBHE's powers, then so is most of the statutory scheme upon which the SBHE is based.
In the past, the Supreme Court has found laws unconstitutional because the legislature was giving too much authority by way of lawmaking power to the SBHE. The SBHE better come up with a better argument than a separation of powers or "who controls the nickname" battle, because the Court has already answered this direct question. The legislature writes the laws and the SBHE administers the laws.
The Sanctions and Punishments Have Arrived
in UND Nickname
Posted
Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota---Three schools with no history against UND outside of hockey. I'd rather have UND keep playing Kansas than any of those schools.
But, I did just find out that UND is playing the University of Iowa in soccer this fall. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/230088/
It'll be interesting to see how may times the words "Iowa", "Minnesota", and "Wisconsin" are posted in this thread before another handful of schools jump on board with the NCAA. Or will it be this troika of Big Ten schools that continually gets regurgitated?