Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
The Whistler

House Bill to Save the Sioux Passes 65 to 28.

Recommended Posts

What a nightmare!! The house has voted to put UND and its athletic teams back ten years, and now the house is likely to do the same. What a huge waste of time, energy, and resources. Nationally, no matter how you slice it, North Dakota as a state and UND as an institution are going to come across looking bad on this one. It's embarrassing. I was actually looking forward to seeing our athletic teams scheduled to play teams like UMN and Wisconsin (like NDSU already has). Fat chance of that happening now. What a bunch of knuckleheads. Wow!!

Can't disagree more.

UND and North Dakota may very well be looked at as rebellious from academic ivory towers and from the NCAA Indianapolis headquarters, but the NCAA itself is loved by no one.

If anything, the Fighting Sioux name becomes even more valuable and the story even more compelling and heroic.

In the South and in the West, if the average fan knew the full story of the nickname controversy, they would be buying Sioux jerseys tomorrow as a show of solidarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'm deeply concerned about the consequences of this bill on the football program, I admit I smiled when I read the results of this vote. I'm really torn on this.

Man, I really wish the legislature had done this two years ago.

Could it be that there are not as many Democrats in the legislature versus two years ago? I know Democrats depend heavily on the votes coming from the reservation and I am assuming the same groups that are anti-nickname are probably left leaning or voted for Democrats to begin with....not saying its the reason, just putting it out there....

BobIwabuchiFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't disagree more.

UND and North Dakota may very well be looked at as rebellious from academic ivory towers and from the NCAA Indianapolis headquarters, but the NCAA itself is loved by no one.

If anything, the Fighting Sioux name becomes even more valuable and the story even more compelling and heroic.

In the South and in the West, if the average fan knew the full story of the nickname controversy, they would be buying Sioux jerseys tomorrow as a show of solidarity.

We will tell our kids and Grand kids about what we did to save the Fighting Sioux nickname! For the Tradition. For The Passion. For all of the People who have loved the name, past and present. We are not going to just let it be taken away! We have lost enough by letting these PC clowns get their way! We will fight for our Fighting Sioux. There are many of those who just say "Fine, Im tired of this, you win." Thats not the Fighting Sioux way! Thats not the American way! We will fight it till the end to show how North Dakota does it!

Screw the Gophers! If they are really into themselves that much and think they are above everybody else, Screw em! It will work itself out once the issue is settled and we know the name is staying or going. Time will tell.

I dont see why the legislature would go through all of this work if it wouldn't be legit once it got passed... Although, it is the Government, so who knows.

Fighting Sioux Forever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant tell me UMN or Wisconsin wouldnt play Florida State Seminoles in any football bowl game or NCAA basketball tourney game because of their "nickname"

What a nightmare!! The house has voted to put UND and its athletic teams back ten years, and now the house is likely to do the same. What a huge waste of time, energy, and resources. Nationally, no matter how you slice it, North Dakota as a state and UND as an institution are going to come across looking bad on this one. It's embarrassing. I was actually looking forward to seeing our athletic teams scheduled to play teams like UMN and Wisconsin (like NDSU already has). Fat chance of that happening now. What a bunch of knuckleheads. Wow!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that there are not as many Democrats in the legislature versus two years ago? I know Democrats depend heavily on the votes coming from the reservation and I am assuming the same groups that are anti-nickname are probably left leaning or voted for Democrats to begin with....not saying its the reason, just putting it out there....

BobIwabuchiFan

That could be part of the reason. GOP had a 58-36 in the House and 26-21 in the Senate in 2009. I think this year it's 69-25 and 35-12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the GF Herald article:

Jeanotte challenged nickname supporters contention that tribal council votes arent enough and the people of Standing Rock should vote on the nickname issue.

If theyre going to follow that rationale, our Legislature shouldnt be voting on this, he said. It should be the people of the state.

Wrong.

The legislature is supposed to represent the people. The majority of North Dakotans, including those on Spirit Lake, and Standing Rock, want the name to remain. The House vote reflects this.

The Standing Rock tribal council is ignoring the will of the people...I can think of a word for that: "dictatorship".

Logic is apparently not Leigh Jeanotte's strong suit. Does anyone seriously doubt the results of a state-wide referendum on this issue? It would be a landslide like today's vote in the House. Nobody on our side is afraid of a state-wide referendum. Heck, nobody on our side is afraid of a Standing Rock referendum. It is only the nickname opponents that oppose of any kind of referendum because they are scared of the results.

When I read a quote like that from people like Leigh Jeanotte, it starts to get my blood flowing again. It doesn't matter that his credibility was completely destroyed by the Spirit Lake referendum. The man has no shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said sir, personally, I think Elliot Glassheim is a bumbling buffoon and proof we need to have term limits in the North Dakota legislature as well. Elliot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic is apparently not Leigh Jeanotte's strong suit. Does anyone seriously doubt the results of a state-wide referendum on this issue? It would be a landslide like today's vote in the House. Nobody on our side is afraid of a state-wide referendum. Heck, nobody on our side is afraid of a Standing Rock referendum. It is only the nickname opponents that oppose of any kind of referendum because they are scared of the results.

When I read a quote like that from people like Leigh Jeanotte, it starts to get my blood flowing again. It doesn't matter that his credibility was completely destroyed by the Spirit Lake referendum. The man has no shame.

Couldn't agree more. The guy's a complete JA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Eliot... not Elliot. Only one (L) in first name.

Who cares? I was able to figure out which gasbag he was referring too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIOUXPR, on 21 February 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The constitution gives the SBHE full authority over the state's higher ed institutions. The legislature provides the money, that's it. They have no control over what it is used for. The decision to retire the nickname is fully protected by the SBHE's constitutional authority. It's a distinct and unique separation of powers that creates essentially a fourth branch of government in the SBHE.

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.

Statuatory limitations: indicates the nickname is fair game.

Statuatory limitations: indicates the nickname is fair game.

Exactly.

Thank you, someone finally read the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if something is in the ND Century Code, that has to be the guiding principle for the ND Legislature, the Executive Branch and all county and municipal governments in the State of North Dakota. The ND Supreme Court is the body that interprets the laws.

If the "dry" provision was not in the Century Code and the Legislature voted to make all campuses dry, then the campuses would be required to "dry out" since there is nothing in the Century Code to prohibit the Legislature from governing that issue. However, in the issue of the nickname and logo, the ND Supreme Court has already ruled that the SBoHE has the authority to tell UND to get rid of the name and logo. I would imagine they used the Century Code as a guidepost to help make this ruling. If the Legislature doesn't like the Century Code as is, they certainly can take appropriate steps to change it. But right now, as far as I can tell, they will have no choice but to adhere to the Century Code whether they like it or not. But I guess the courts will have to figure it out; that is what they get paid to do.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but you do realize the legislature adopts the laws that comprise the Century Code?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post, it's amazing how many people on this board and in the ND legislature are either blind or willfully ignorant to the North Dakota Constitution. Post after post talking about what the sanctions will mean and whether UND can or cannot host a postseason game. I've got news for everyone, It doesn't matter what the sanctions will mean! The State Supreme Court has already ruled in Spirit Lake v. SBHE that the SBHE has the Constitutional Authority to retire the nickname. The Attorney General has also issued an opinion stating that 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." He further went on to state "I am committed to the nickname. But Im even more committed to the Constitution. I just swore an oath to uphold it. Even if this bill makes it out of the Governor's office, It will never go into effect as it is Unconstitutional on its face. That fact has been already been affirmed by both the State Supreme Court as well as the Attorney General. Only a constitutional amendment stripping the SBHE of its authority would make this law constitutional. The SBHE and UND can and will continue to retire the nickname regardless of whether this bill passes or not, because it's their Constitutional right! The Constitution is a wonderful thing. Y'all should read it.

Some of us have read it -- and understand it.

The Supreme Court ruled on the narrow question of whether the board of higher education had the authority. Most people would agree the board does. However, the court did not address the extent of the legislature's authority with respect to this issue.

While it is true the board of higher education has some degree of constitutional status, the board is not a fourth branch of government that is allowed to operate in a autonomous manner. Read section 26 of article XI of the state constitution -- Section 26. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are coequal branches of government.

Learned that in grade school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Eliot... not Elliot. Only one (L) in first name.

Potato, Potato the guy is still a buffoon. :ohmy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potato, Potato the guy is still a buffoon. :ohmy:

Don't disagree. Just hate to see your credibility diminished by typos and misspellings. If we have such strong feelings against individuals, we should at least know how to spell the their names. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realizing, of course, that they may not have any Native American bloodlines, all 4 of the Representatives that represent the Spirit Lake and Standing Rock legislative districts voted FOR the retention of the Fighting Sioux nickname.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if something is in the ND Century Code, that has to be the guiding principle for the ND Legislature, the Executive Branch and all county and municipal governments in the State of North Dakota. The ND Supreme Court is the body that interprets the laws.

If the "dry" provision was not in the Century Code and the Legislature voted to make all campuses dry, then the campuses would be required to "dry out" since there is nothing in the Century Code to prohibit the Legislature from governing that issue. However, in the issue of the nickname and logo, the ND Supreme Court has already ruled that the SBoHE has the authority to tell UND to get rid of the name and logo. I would imagine they used the Century Code as a guidepost to help make this ruling. If the Legislature doesn't like the Century Code as is, they certainly can take appropriate steps to change it. But right now, as far as I can tell, they will have no choice but to adhere to the Century Code whether they like it or not. But I guess the courts will have to figure it out; that is what they get paid to do.

The Century Code is a codification of the laws passed by the legislature. If this bill becomes law, it will end up in the Century Code.

Assuming there is no law to the contrary, I don't think anyone questions that the SBoHE has the authority to retire the nickname. However, the questions arises if the legislature passes a law contrary to a decision of the SBoHE. There appears to be two possible conclusions based on the plain language of the Constitutional provision in question. Wayne Stenehjem stated that it appeared to him that the SBoHE would prevail in that power struggle. I haven't read any other North Dakota lawyer opine on the subject. I'd like to ready any caselaw interpeting that provision of the Constitution, if any exists. Another issue is who would have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of this law? What if the SBoHE doesn't challenge the legislature on this issue? I don't think it's beyond possiblity that the SBoHE stays neutral and washes their hands of this messy issue. Who else would have standing to challenge the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue is who would have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of this law? What if the SBoHE doesn't challenge the legislature on this issue? I don't think it's beyond possiblity that the SBoHE stays neutral and washes their hands of this messy issue. Who else would have standing to challenge the law?

Well, at the very least, a number of lawyers will make some serious $$$ muddling through those same issues. :) The AG may be in the position of trying to welch on the settlement, defending the Board, attacking the NC$$, hiring outside firms, doing appellate work, etc. Good thing NoDak has a budget surplus to blow on this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming there is no law to the contrary, I don't think anyone questions that the SBoHE has the authority to retire the nickname.

There, I believe, is the rub.

Yes, the ND SBoHE has authority over UND's nickname; however, the ND SBoHE must also abide by state law (the ND Century Code).

And there is nothing stopping the Legislature from mandating a school moniker. It's really no different than declaring a state motto ("Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable"), state nickname (Peace Garden State, Rough Rider State, Sioux State), state bird (western meadowlark), state flower (prairie rose), or state dance (the polka?): it is their statement on how the state should be represented.

If the Legislature says the moniker will be "Fighting Sioux" the ND SBoHE must live within that.

The argument then becomes:

Is this smart law? Will UND and the state see a net benefit from this law, or will we just keep litigating with the NCAA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post, it's amazing how many people on this board and in the ND legislature are either blind or willfully ignorant to the North Dakota Constitution. Post after post talking about what the sanctions will mean and whether UND can or cannot host a postseason game. I've got news for everyone, It doesn't matter what the sanctions will mean! The State Supreme Court has already ruled in Spirit Lake v. SBHE that the SBHE has the Constitutional Authority to retire the nickname. The Attorney General has also issued an opinion stating that 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." He further went on to state "I am committed to the nickname. But Im even more committed to the Constitution. I just swore an oath to uphold it. Even if this bill makes it out of the Governor's office, It will never go into effect as it is Unconstitutional on its face. That fact has been already been affirmed by both the State Supreme Court as well as the Attorney General. Only a constitutional amendment stripping the SBHE of its authority would make this law constitutional. The SBHE and UND can and will continue to retire the nickname regardless of whether this bill passes or not, because it's their Constitutional right! The Constitution is a wonderful thing. Y'all should read it.

The Constitution IS a wonderful thing. But don't forget that the man who wrote the US declaration of independance was an advocate of ripping up our Federal Constitution and starting over every 20 years (Thomas Jefferson). In my opinion what you are overlooking is the fact that just because there is a constitution in place, does not mean the contents are infallable. The people, both non-Native and Native have declared that we do not agree with this change. We are the same people whom the constitution was written FOR. And we are the same people who , through our voices and votes, are granted the power to oppose statutes, laws, - and yes - even the constitution of our governments (state or federal). Keeping the name will NOT be (has not been) easy... nor should it be. The constitution (state or federal) BY DESIGN should be diffucult to oppose or ultimately change. God forbid we see a day when the legislators do not listen to, our act on, the will of the people because the constitution is difficult to oppose or change . In my estimation that (to an extent) has been going on too often when it comes to this situation But now, with the passage of this bill in the House, it appears that maybe someone is listening.

Your arguement seems to be that this is unconstitutional - and it may be. To that I say - "that doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do". I realize we are talking about the state constitution, but the principles governing the state and federal are the same. Now - do you think the Constitution of the U.S. (or our state constituion for that matter) is a STRONGER document or WEAKER document because there have been some ammendments (read: CHANGES) to it? I would say there are more than a few women, black americans, land owners, taxpayers, minorities and other citizens who are glad that someone decided along the way that just because something is difficult or unconstitutional doesn't mean it is not the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, for a quick sidebar:

I'm amazed at how many don't know how something becomes law (called the Century Code in ND).

In an effort to try to fix the apparent short-comings of either the schools or the learners here's an educational video about how a "bill" becomes law. (The transcript of the video is here.) Be aware however that this is written for US laws, not specifically ND, but the process is the same.

To translate it:

Washington or Capital Hill = Bismarck

House of Representatives = State House

Congress = Legislature

Congressman* = State representative

Senate = Senate

Senator = Senator

President = Governor

White House = Governor's office

* some will argue Congressman can mean House or Senate, but it's most commonly used for a House member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument then becomes:

Is this smart law? Will UND and the state see a net benefit from this law, or will we just keep litigating with the NCAA?

I'll take "What series of Mercedes will the lawyers buy?" for $200, Alex. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...