Let your voices be heard in Bismarck-Sioux logo

[bisonh8er]

Well this is directly quoted from my law book.

Requirements of a Valid Contract

"The Following list briefly describes the four requirements that must be met for a valid contract to exist. If any of these elements is lacking, no contract will have been formed.

1. Agreement- An agreement to form a contract includes and offer and acceptance. One party must offer to enter into a legal agreement, and another party must accept the terms of the offer.

2. Consideration- Any promises made by parties must be supported by legally sufficient and bargained-for consideration.

3. Contractual capacity- Both parties entering into the contract must have the contractual capacity to do so; the law must recognize them as possessing characteristics that qualify them as competent parties.

4. Legality- The contract's purpose must accomplish some goal that is legal and not against public policy."

And another section

The Effects of Illegality

"In general, an illegal contract is void: the contract is deemed never to have existed, and the courts will not aid either party. In most illegal contracts, both parties are considered to be equally at fault- in pari delicto. "

Im not a law major and i don't know if this is relevant or not but seems like it could apply. Any law students or professionals care to clarify if i'm interpreting these correctly by saying that because the NCAA decision would be illegal the contract is voided?

[engelbunny]

Then again, as George W. Bush said about the US Constitution "It's just a goddamn piece of paper", so that may work for some of the deluded types around here.

The source of that "quote" was an article in Capital Hill Blue. If you go to that article now, you will find this:

"This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database."

Here is the link: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Even FactCheck.org isn't buying the quote. Here is their link: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

So, please don't let your politics get in the way of a discussion as it clouds your judgement and cheapens your argument.

[siouxfan29]

Moreover, that pesky NoDak Constitution about the Board's authority over the universities just keeps getting in the way.

Maybe Scott M, you should read the ND State Constitution. The State Higher Ed Board needs to adhere to constitutional and statuatory law, which would include the laws of the State of ND and who makes those laws??? Who gives the money to the State Board to keep the universities going? The State Legislature has the right to do this! If you would have been at the Education committee hearing, you would have heard a state constitutional lawyer state that the State Board is subject to the laws that the legislature makes!

[darell1976]

So what happens if someone comes up with a bill that says UND should NOT be called the Fighting Sioux then what happens?

[Teeder11]

So what happens if someone comes up with a bill that says UND should NOT be called the Fighting Sioux then what happens?

It would go through the same process, but my guess would be that it would receive a hefty "do not pass" recommendation at committee.

[darell1976]

It would go through the same process, but my guess would be that it would receive a hefty "do not pass" recommendation at committee.

Not that I would think it would happen, but nothing these days suprises me anymore.

[Siouxbooster#33]

FYI

N.D.C.C., 9-08-01 provides:

Any provision of a contract is unlawful if it is:

1. Contrary to an express provision of law;

2. Contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited; or

3. Otherwise contrary to good morals.

[mksioux]

Well this is directly quoted from my law book.

Requirements of a Valid Contract

"The Following list briefly describes the four requirements that must be met for a valid contract to exist. If any of these elements is lacking, no contract will have been formed.

1. Agreement- An agreement to form a contract includes and offer and acceptance. One party must offer to enter into a legal agreement, and another party must accept the terms of the offer.

2. Consideration- Any promises made by parties must be supported by legally sufficient and bargained-for consideration.

3. Contractual capacity- Both parties entering into the contract must have the contractual capacity to do so; the law must recognize them as possessing characteristics that qualify them as competent parties.

4. Legality- The contract's purpose must accomplish some goal that is legal and not against public policy."

And another section

The Effects of Illegality

"In general, an illegal contract is void: the contract is deemed never to have existed, and the courts will not aid either party. In most illegal contracts, both parties are considered to be equally at fault- in pari delicto. "

Im not a law major and i don't know if this is relevant or not but seems like it could apply. Any law students or professionals care to clarify if i'm interpreting these correctly by saying that because the NCAA decision would be illegal the contract is voided?

There is nothing illegal about the settlment agreement. And passing this proposed law would not make the settlement agreement illegal.

[mksioux]

FYI

N.D.C.C., 9-08-01 provides:

Any provision of a contract is unlawful if it is:

1. Contrary to an express provision of law;

2. Contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited; or

3. Otherwise contrary to good morals.

Again, the settlement agreement would not become "illegal" if this proposed law passes.

There's no use getting bogged down on the part of the bill that urges the AG to consider bringing an anti-trust suit against the NCAA. Either that part of the bill will be stripped before ultimate passage or the AG will choose not to do it because he knows that such a suit would get promptly dismissed. I can't say I know exactly how this whole thing is going to end, but I can say that you will not be seeing the State of North Dakota bring another anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA.

What should be happening right now as this bill is making its way forward is that the powers that be ought to be reaching out to the NCAA to see if they will work with us in a productive way, and if not, threatening political consequences. Really, only Conrad and Hoeven on the federal level have the power to get the NCAA's attention in that regard. Unfortunately, neither has shown any real interest in this issue.

[ScottM]

There is nothing illegal about the settlment agreement. And passing this proposed law would not make the settlement agreement illegal.

I wonder if the legislation would run into prohibitions against ex post facto laws, especially since it could effectively prohibit certain legal activities after the fact, and then force the board/UND to attempt to unwind agreement.

[BobIwabuchiFan]

The source of that "quote" was an article in Capital Hill Blue. If you go to that article now, you will find this:

"This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database."

Here is the link: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Even FactCheck.org isn't buying the quote. Here is their link: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

So, please don't let your politics get in the way of a discussion as it clouds your judgement and cheapens your argument.

Ouch! Nice to see someone check their facts as opposed to keeping the ones they want....

[MDNSioux]

Again, the settlement agreement would not become "illegal" if this proposed law passes.

There's no use getting bogged down on the part of the bill that urges the AG to consider bringing an anti-trust suit against the NCAA. Either that part of the bill will be stripped before ultimate passage or the AG will choose not to do it because he knows that such a suit would get promptly dismissed. I can't say I know exactly how this whole thing is going to end, but I can say that you will not be seeing the State of North Dakota bring another anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA.

What should be happening right now as this bill is making its way forward is that the powers that be ought to be reaching out to the NCAA to see if they will work with us in a productive way, and if not, threatening political consequences. Really, only Conrad and Hoeven on the federal level have the power to get the NCAA's attention in that regard. Unfortunately, neither has shown any real interest in this issue.

So can you explain why it would not become illegal? Whats the difference between this law and any other law they pass that is legal now and after it is passed is illegal? Im not a great law mind so thats why im asking you these questions. I have read siouxboosters33 posts and they seem to be backed up with reasons and facts as to why the new law would make the settlement illegal. Im not saying anybody is wrong or right here. Everybody also keeps saying the NCAA is gonna impose sanctions, UND is not going to get in to the big sky, other schools are going to go along with wisconsin and minnesota and not play UND, it goes on and on. Some of these things likely could happen but nobody knows for sure. Like you said you dont know how its going to end. Its all speculation at this point. Im very interested to see what happens. I hope the Legislature passes this and the nickname prevails without hurting UND. I have some doubts as well and i think there is a long way to go, but i do support the legislatures effort.

[PhillySioux]

Nickname Bills up on Monday

[Blackburn87]

Does anyone in North Dakota have a sense of where this will go? I kept hearing that this wouldn't go anywhere and yet, it came out with a solid "Do-Pass" recommendation out of committee.

[mksioux]

So can you explain why it would not become illegal? Whats the difference between this law and any other law they pass that is legal now and after it is passed is illegal? Im not a great law mind so thats why im asking you these questions. I have read siouxboosters33 posts and they seem to be backed up with reasons and facts as to why the new law would make the settlement illegal. Im not saying anybody is wrong or right here. Everybody also keeps saying the NCAA is gonna impose sanctions, UND is not going to get in to the big sky, other schools are going to go along with wisconsin and minnesota and not play UND, it goes on and on. Some of these things likely could happen but nobody knows for sure. Like you said you dont know how its going to end. Its all speculation at this point. Im very interested to see what happens. I hope the Legislature passes this and the nickname prevails without hurting UND. I have some doubts as well and i think there is a long way to go, but i do support the legislatures effort.

Please explain to me how the law would make the settlement agreement illegal. The settlement agreement does not require UND to drop the nickname. The NCAA has always acknowledged the State of North Dakota has the right to determine whether to retain the nickname. The proposed legislation (if constitutional) would simply take the choice away from the SBoHE and give it to the legislature by codifying the decision into state law. So UND will remain the Fighting Sioux and the settlement agreement would still bind the parties as to the agreed-upon consequences of that decision.

[SIOUXPR]

Article 8, Section 6 of the North Dakota State Constitution

1. A board of higher education, to be officially known as the state board of higher

education, is hereby created for the control and administration of the following state

educational institutions, to wit:

a. The state university and school of mines, at Grand Forks, with their substations.

6.b. The said state board of higher education shall have full authority over the

institutions under its control with the right, among its other powers, to prescribe,

limit, or modify the courses offered at the several institutions. In furtherance of

its powers, the state board of higher education shall have the power to delegate

to its employees details of the administration of the institutions under its control.

The said state board of higher education shall have full authority to organize or

reorganize within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each

institution under its control, and do each and everything necessary and proper

for the efficient and economic administration of said state educational

institutions.

[bisonh8er]

Please explain to me how the law would make the settlement agreement illegal. The settlement agreement does not require UND to drop the nickname. The NCAA has always acknowledged the State of North Dakota has the right to determine whether to retain the nickname. The proposed legislation (if constitutional) would simply take the choice away from the SBoHE and give it to the legislature by codifying the decision into state law. So UND will remain the Fighting Sioux and the settlement agreement would still bind the parties as to the agreed-upon consequences of that decision.

Ya but the question is how can the NCAA punish a public institution for following state law? I don't know how they possibly could because UND has followed the rulings handed down to them but if a law is passed saying they have to be the sioux then the school has no choice but to abide by the law. That would mean that the NCAA would be forcing UND to break the law to avoid their sanctions which I'm sure is illegal. As far as another poster saying they could kick UND out of the NCAA, I think that would be a PR nightmare for the NCAA. Could you imagine the fallback against the NCAA for kicking a school out because they didn't like their mascot?

[siouxfan29]

The ND House of Representatives is going to vote on keeping the Fighting Sioux name and logo. I urge you to email our representatives and let them know that our identity is important!

Here are their email addresses:

bamerman@nd.gov; dickanderson@nd.gov; tbeadle@nd.gov; lbellew@nd.gov; wbelter@nd.gov; tboe@nd.gov; rboehning@nd.gov; rbrabandt@nd.gov; mbrandenburg@nd.gov; acarlson@nd.gov; donclark@nd.gov; tconklin@nd.gov; stdahl@nd.gov; cdamschen@nd.gov; ddekrey@nd.gov; ldelmore@nd.gov; jdelzer@nd.gov; bdevlin@nd.gov; mdosch@nd.gov; ddrovdal@nd.gov; rfrantsvog@nd.gov; gfroseth@nd.gov; eglassheim@nd.gov; bgrande@nd.gov; egruchalla@nd.gov; rguggisberg@nd.gov; lhanson@nd.gov; phatlestad@nd.gov; khawken@nd.gov; cheadland@nd.gov; jaheilman@nd.gov; bheller@nd.gov; chofstad@nd.gov; khogan@nd.gov; rholman@nd.gov; bhunskor@nd.gov; djohnson@nd.gov; njohnson@nd.gov; lakaldor@nd.gov; kkarls@nd.gov; jkasper@nd.gov; gkeiser@nd.gov; rkelsch@nd.gov; jkelsh@nd.gov; skelsh@nd.gov; kkempenich@nd.gov; rkilichowski@nd.gov; jkingsbury@nd.gov; mklein@nd.gov; lklemin@nd.gov; kkoppelman@nd.gov; gkreidt@nd.gov; wkretschmar@nd.gov; ckreun@nd.gov; jkroeber@nd.gov; sclouser@nd.gov; agmaragos@nd.gov; bmartinson@nd.gov; lmeier@nd.gov; rmetcalf@nd.gov; sjmeyer@nd.gov; crmock@nd.gov; dmonson@nd.gov; pmueller@nd.gov; mrnathe@nd.gov; jonelson@nd.gov; menelson@nd.gov; konstad@nd.gov; mowens@nd.gov; gpaur@nd.gov; vpietsch@nd.gov; cpollert@nd.gov; tkporter@nd.gov; kmrohr@nd.gov; druby@nd.gov; drust@nd.gov; masanford@nd.gov; mischatz@nd.gov; jeschmidt@nd.gov; bskarphol@nd.gov; vsteiner@nd.gov; rstreyle@nd.gov; gsukut@nd.gov; bthoreson@nd.gov; wtrottier@nd.gov; dwvigesaa@nd.gov; jwall@nd.gov; dweiler@nd.gov; rweisz@nd.gov; awieland@nd.gov; cdwilliams@nd.gov; lbwinrich@nd.gov; dwrangham@nd.gov; szaiser@nd.gov

[Teeder11]

Ya but the question is how can the NCAA punish a public institution for following state law? I don't know how they possibly could because UND has followed the rulings handed down to them but if a law is passed saying they have to be the sioux then the school has no choice but to abide by the law. That would mean that the NCAA would be forcing UND to break the law to avoid their sanctions which I'm sure is illegal. As far as another poster saying they could kick UND out of the NCAA, I think that would be a PR nightmare for the NCAA. Could you imagine the fallback against the NCAA for kicking a school out because they didn't like their mascot?

Another way to look at this might be to choose another situation altogether in which the NCAA has clear rules or restrictions against something, such as taking money, bribes or favors from basically anyone, but especially team boosters ...... or maybe the NCAA rules on maximum number of scholarships allowed ... or any one of a thousand other rules that the NCAA has to regulate athletes, coaches and boosters.

If the North Dakota Legislature passed a law saying that its NCAA-participating universities were exempt from any of these NCCA rules or bylaws, would the NCAA simply make an exception for those schools because they are simply following state law?

[Siouxbooster#33]

There is nothing illegal about the settlment agreement. And passing this proposed law would not make the settlement agreement illegal.

Correct in part: There WAS nothing illegal about the settlement agreeent, per se. But one of the actions required of a party in this settlement agreement would be illegal, if the law passes. This is a fine example of our checks and balances -- something happens in a Court case, and the legislature responds.

[bisonh8er]

If the North Dakota Legislature passed a law saying that its NCAA-participating universities were exempt from any of these NCCA rules or bylaws, would the NCAA simply make an exception for those schools because they are simply following state law?

[engelbunny]

There are real interesting questions being raised in this thread, one of which was by you - does the ND Constitution preclude the legislature from interfering with the administrative affairs of the university system? I don't know. I suspect there will be a healthy debate in Bismarck on that question if this bill passes.

[SIOUXPR]

There are real interesting questions being raised in this thread, one of which was by you - does the ND Constitution preclude the legislature from interfering with the administrative affairs of the university system? I don't know. I suspect there will be a healthy debate in Bismarck on that question if this bill passes.

Great, thank you. Back to the question that I raised. Here are some quotes from Wayne Stenehjem that were included in a GF Herald article a month ago:

The North Dakota Constitution includes a provision that says the State Board of Higher Education shall have full authority over the institutions under its control. The authority they have on this question. . . is rather extensive. So thats going to be a real obstacle to overcome in legislation."

I am committed to the nickname. But Im even more committed to the Constitution. I just swore an oath to uphold it.

I guess many of these state legislators must have missed their swearing in.

[GDM]

OK. Here it is. Once.

This left/right Dem/Rep non-sense is just that: non-sense.

All it takes is for one of each party to vote yes and one of each party to vote no to prove it as such.

If I find any more left/right Dem/Rep bickering in this thread

a) it gets shut down

b) some posters go on a long, long vacation from this forum

You agreed to this when you created your account here, specifically "No politics ... ". Check the link in my signature for details.

I've wasted 15 minutes of my life cleaning up this thread so I wouldn't have to close it because I still hold out hope for it.

Don't disappoint me.

[SIOUXPR]

OK. Here it is. Once.

This left/right Dem/Rep non-sense is just that: non-sense.

All it takes is for one of each party to vote yes and one of each party to vote no to prove it as such.

If I find any more left/right Dem/Rep bickering in this thread

a) it gets shut down

b) some posters go on a long, long vacation from this forum

You agreed to this when you created your account here, specifically "No politics ... ". Check the link in my signature for details.

I've wasted 15 minutes of my life cleaning up this thread so I wouldn't have to close it because I still hold out hope for it.

Don't disappoint me.

Censorship is fun, isn't it.