Cratter Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Step 1: UND/North Dakota signed a contract agreeing to drop he nickname. Did the contract actually state UND would drop the nickname if they didn't win approval. I seriously don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Did the contract actually state UND would drop the nickname if they didn't win approval. I seriously don't know. http://www.ag.nd.gov/NCAA/SettlementAgreement.pdf Yes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 http://www.ag.nd.gov...ntAgreement.pdf Yes OK. Thanks. You are right. Interesting Times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 http://www.ag.nd.gov...ntAgreement.pdf Yes Nice work there, Philly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Maybe someone should start a petition that NDSU should be called the ______ (fill in the blank). Get enough signatures and put it out for vote. This whole fiasco is just plain stupid. Not a bad measure of revenge for our "friends" at 'su ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that the SBoHE has to take control of this issue. I wondered why the ND SBoHE didn't constitutionally challenge Carlson's Folly when it first appeared and passed. Since then a wise man has pointed out to me that, at the time, it would be a direct attack by the SBoHE against the Legislature while the Legislature was reviewing and approving appropriations for the NDUS. Not good. Roll the clock forward to today: The Legislature itself has reversed Carlson's Folly and pulled it off the books. But Carlson's Folly has returned due to the petitioners' actions. Now if the SBoHE raises a constitutional challenge to strike down Carlson's Folly they can look at the Legislature and say, "All we did is follow suit to your action to kill the (Carlson's Folly) law." That's a much better position for the SBoHE to be in come next legislative session. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Many Universities are named after individuals/families. We can be the Fighting Sioux University. Our athletes can be call 'the FSU Athletes'....... *tongue in cheek* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonadub Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 State Board asks for statement from ND Supreme Court declaring nickname law unconstitutional The State Board of Higher Education today asked Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem to seek a declaratory statement from the North Dakota Supreme Court declaring the Fighting Sioux nickname law adopted in April 2011 to be unconstitutional. The vote was 7-1, with board member Claus Lembke dissenting. Early in the two-hour teleconference meeting, Stenehjem told the board that, in his opinion, “if this matter were to be brought to the Supreme Court justices, I have no doubt they would rule the law (requiring UND to keep the nickname) is in violation of the Constitution.” Stenehjem told the board that they will need to ask the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction to take up the case, and they would need to seek an expedited hearing schedule so the matter could come before the court in time for action before the deadline for printing the June primary election ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 State Board asks for statement from ND Supreme Court declaring nickname law unconstitutional Thank you SBoHE. You just made the petitioners jobs easier...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 State Board asks for statement from ND Supreme Court declaring nickname law unconstitutional Assuming the Supreme Court does find the law unconstitutional, then the law is repealed and the retirement of the nickname is back in effect? Would this put an end to the referendum as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Assuming the Supreme Court does find the law unconstitutional, then the law is repealed and the retirement of the nickname is back in effect? Would this put an end to the referendum as well? It would put an end to the referendum to repeal the repeal, in other words to put the original law back into effect. It would not end the efforts at getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot for November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Thank you SBoHE. You just made the petitioners jobs easier...... And if successful it creates only 1 election to fight rather than spending money to defeat 2 different proposals. Plus it may help clarify some of the control issues between the legislature and the SBoHE. If the petitioners actually do have 16,000+ signatures on the amendment petition like they claim, there is a pretty good chance they would be able to get the other 10-11,000 by August 8th either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Very shortsighted of them to do this. Not surprising though. They've bungled every other part of the process so they may as well continue to do so. I'll say one thing for them at this point: They're predictable. Post-script: Oh, and they're incompetent and completely out of touch with how to accomplish a desired outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 It would put an end to the referendum to repeal the repeal, in other words to put the original law back into effect. It would not end the efforts at getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot for November. It could, depending on exactly what the Court rules. If a holding that the statute is unconstitutional is based on the legislature overstepping its bounds with regard to board of higher ed. authority, then a constitutional amendment could still be an issue. If Art. I, Sec. 18 is the basis for the holding, I don't see how there's any getting around that. Of course, I realize some will disagree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 And if successful it creates only 1 election to fight rather than spending money to defeat 2 different proposals. Plus it may help clarify some of the control issues between the legislature and the SBoHE. If the petitioners actually do have 16,000+ signatures on the amendment petition like they claim, there is a pretty good chance they would be able to get the other 10-11,000 by August 8th either way. I understand your points but the SBoHE is just plain being stupid here. They probably have a lower approval rating in the state than the U.S. Congress has nationally, given all that has transpired and given that there is a high degree of mistrust for the de facto fourth branch of government (lesislature and the citizens of ND) already. Now, they're going only to add to that by opposing the will of the voters? Sure, "we're just challenging the constitutionality of the law; we're not challenging the voters." Right. Even if they're sincere about that, do they really think that people are really going to appreciate or care about such an esoteric nuance? That representation is just going to fall on the ash heap with Shaft's unfounded Notre Dame comment and with the SBoHE hurrying up the nickname retirement in response to a favorable vote on Spirit Lake. I'm not a PR person but even I can see that whoever is advising the SBoHE needs to seriously think about making a career change. And, let's not forget that this little move will only add gasoline to the fire and quite possibly will result in more national media attention. So, in one fell swoop the SBoHE has 1.) caused resolve to become even more strong and passionate; and 2.) given even more fodder for national media. Capital move guys! Good show! Those of you on here who purport to have the interests of the university first and foremost and who oppose the petition process - and you do obviously have legitimate arguments/concerns - aught to be both stunned and incensed by this complete lack of foresight and utter absence of common sense. For once, Jacobs made a lot of sense yesterday with his piece. I guess it will be his turn to be Cassandra in this whole process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Thank you SBoHE. You just made the petitioners jobs easier...... Chewey, How does the nickname law survive article 1,section 18 of ND Constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux2013 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 So are we closer to getting rid of the nickname and bring life back to UND athletics or did we just take a hit and move further away. All this legal talk has me confused. Someone make it simple for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Chewey, How does the nickname law survive article 1,section 18 of ND Constitution? Even if it fails - and I'm not convinced that it will fail - the SBoHE has just made a constitutional amendment a much more likely prospect. Just plain idiotic, even from a petition supporter's viewpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Even if it fails - and I'm not convinced that it will fail - the SBoHE has just made a constitutional amendment a much more likely prospect. Just plain idiotic, even from a petition supporter's viewpoint. And how would a potential amendment survive the contracts clause in the US constitution? And you didn't answer my question from above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 And how would a potential amendment survive the contracts clause in the US constitution? And you didn't answer my question from above. Can you explain you're opinion on the contracts clause issue? I thought the Supreme Court said the settlement was not a contract as it merged with the final judgment. I'm obviously confused about something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Not the last lawsuit to happen http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/north-dakota-higher-ed-board-to-sue-to-drop-fighting/article_4c4c0750-569a-11e1-94a1-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1mJ91vvXfhttp://bit.ly/yqA9Pq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 So are we closer to getting rid of the nickname and bring life back to UND athletics or did we just take a hit and move further away. All this legal talk has me confused. Someone make it simple for me. I am the last person you want to make anything simple or explain anything rationally :~) But, my take is that this is a very stupid move. Maybe they get the law declared unconstitutional; maybe they don't. In any event, they make the liklihood of having a constitutional amendment enshrining the nickname more likely. Maybe they win the battle only to make things much more complicated further out and draw more national media. I do not agree with your perspective that keeping the nickname dooms UND athletics. The NCAA is holding a gun to UND's head for a very flippant and capricious reason: They just don't like the nickname and they feel that they have the power to just impose their will and monopolistic power on any school. It's pure ego and pure conceit. Many of you have bought into this distortion. The nickname and logo do not hurt anything. It is the sheer arrogance, conceit and mercurial disposition of the NCAA that is the real issue here. That is what is being challenged. The SBoHE, UND, Alumni, etc should buck up and emulate and join the Sioux people (yes, they ARE leading this - you can take that to the bank) who are fighting against this low-core aggressive juggernaut. All of you should be contacting the MIA congressional delegation and telling them to pull their heads out and intervene; what a trio of empty-suits. Tip O'Neill, a very bright former Speaker of the House, said that "All politics is local." If the tune of 17,000 signatures on a local issue has not garnered their attention, they're either being advised poorly or they're just obtuse. The Republicans should be especially concerned because this would tell me that a lot of people would be supporting more "conservative" or "libertarian-minded" opponents in any primaries down the road. The psychology being employed by the NCAA is quite transparent: It's economic terroistic threats, pure and simple. Many of you have acquiesced to it. It's no different than some petty fool threatening to blow up a building with a bunch of people in it if that petty fool's demands are not met. One can never cede anything to this sort of disposition. The economic terrorism reality aught to serve as a clairon call for overt, inflexible and unyielding opposition to the NCAA by everyone so victimized. Everyone is being victimized by the NCAA, especially the Native Americans. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Can you explain you're opinion on the contracts clause issue? I thought the Supreme Court said the settlement was not a contract as it merged with the final judgment. I'm obviously confused about something. Precisely. No, you're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Can you explain you're opinion on the contracts clause issue? I thought the Supreme Court said the settlement was not a contract as it merged with the final judgment. I'm obviously confused about something. I don't know of any declaration by the NDSC declaring the settlement to not be a contract, not impossible though. Even so, I am fairly confident that the legislature cannot tell anyone to run afoul of a court order. Either way....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 At what point do you start giving into demands when that petty fool has already killed some of the people? Just keep holding out in hopes they decide to change their mind before more people or schools are dead? You can talk all day about how the NCAA is wrong in this. Most people here agree. But that doesn't make them and their sanctions against UND any less real or undoubtedly damaging to UND athletics programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.