The Sicatoka Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Folks were saying before that the state law regarding the moniker was in violation of the state constitution. Well, that allegedly unconstitutional law is active again this morning. The ND SBoHE apparently (if you believe the unconstitutional claim) had it's state constitutional power usurped, again, by the moniker law (or as I like to call it, Carlson's Folly). I'm betting that by close of business today, Feb 8, 2012, the ND SBoHE will file suit claiming that the state law is in violation of the state constitution and thus is void. Takers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 So, here is a question that I have not seen come up in this thread, yet... What if... the repeal initiative goes to a vote. The state votes it down, because we are afraid of what it means to UND with the NCAA and especially the Big Sky. BUT, there is a two-thirds approval in BOTH of the reservation precincts, such as Sioux and Benson Counties? Would the people who are supposedly supporting the rights of native americans in Indianapolis listen to the native vote or the statewide (mostly white) vote, since they are doing this FOR the native americans? Would someone who has a better grasp of the legal side of what is going on here have any ideas? IMO there is very little chance if this goes to a state-wide vote that it gets voted down. As to the 2/3 approval of Benson and Sioux counties, SL tribe in Benson already approved the nickname via their vote so to me what the overall vote within that county is is irrelevant. Only 48% of all the residients in Benson Co. are NA. Sioux county though is another story. There are roughly 4000+ people living in Sioux county with approx. 85% of those being NA. If Sioux county voted with a greater than 2/3 approval, based on the high % of NA's, I wonder how that would be taken or spun to fit the NCAA's requirement of getting both tribes approval? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 So, here is a question that I have not seen come up in this thread, yet... What if... the repeal initiative goes to a vote. The state votes it down, because we are afraid of what it means to UND with the NCAA and especially the Big Sky. BUT, there is a two-thirds approval in BOTH of the reservation precincts, such as Sioux and Benson Counties? Would the people who are supposedly supporting the rights of native americans in Indianapolis listen to the native vote or the statewide (mostly white) vote, since they are doing this FOR the native americans? Would someone who has a better grasp of the legal side of what is going on here have any ideas? This issue was settled in 2007, and UND was given three years to get two tribes' approval. It did not obtain the necessary approvals in the required timeframe. Now with this current morass, UND can expect its athletic teams to be sanctioned accordingly. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept. And most likely, the women's hockey team will be the first to feel those sanctions. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 There are two angles here for the SBoHE to mull over. 1) Their supposed constitutional authority over all Higher Ed issues. 2) Per the US Constitution, A state CANNOT legislate away it's contractual obligations. The problem is someone has to assert their rights under one or both of the above issues. Who should and when are political questions. We are nearing the end game for the anti higher ed cranks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Folks were saying before that the state law regarding the moniker was in violation of the state constitution. Well, that allegedly unconstitutional law is active again this morning. The ND SBoHE apparently (if you believe the unconstitutional claim) had it's state constitutional power usurped, again, by the moniker law (or as I like to call it, Carlson's Folly). I'm betting that by close of business today, Feb 8, 2012, the ND SBoHE will file suit claiming that the state law is in violation of the state constitution and thus is void. Takers? Well, Seward's folly turned out ok...harbinger of things to come? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I find it quite embarrassing that at the very least there are apparently 17,000 people in the state of North Dakota that are willing to cripple UND athletics................. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I find it quite embarrassing that at the very least there are apparently 17,000 people in the state of North Dakota that are willing to cripple UND athletics................. But you can take comfort in the fact they're "standing up to the NC$$", and protecting the heritage of those poor souls in Indian Country, so they can trot around in their sweat-stained Sioux jerseys. I'm sure our teams will appreciate that when taking a bus to play Alcorn State in Bumf**k, Oklahoma in the nascent Indy League playoffs, along with Juanita's School of Hair Sculpture, as well as Bud's Institute of Bail Bonding and Bartending. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 But you can take comfort in the fact they're "standing up to the NC$$", and protecting the heritage of those poor souls in Indian Country, so they can trot around in their sweat-stained Sioux jerseys. I'm sure our teams will appreciate that when taking a bus to play Alcorn State in Bumf**k, Oklahoma in the nascent Indy League playoffs, along with Juanita's School of Hair Sculpture, as well as Bud's Institute of Bail Bonding and Bartending. I hear we have alot of alumni around Bud's Insititute............................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/07/organizers-say-have-enough-signatures-to-restore-university-south-dakotas/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 http://www.foxnews.c...-south-dakotas/ Well, I guess USD is screwed now................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 http://www.foxnews.c...-south-dakotas/ Faux News at its best! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 If you are on the North American continent and less than 500 miles from an ocean there's just this blob of open land in the middle of the continent that really doesn't matter. Hence, eh, North, South, whatever Dakota. It's nothin'. So don't let stories like this surprise you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I love the Fighting Sioux but I don't see that as an issue worth fighting over," Carlson said. "I don't see that we should be running penalties up You lying hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I love the Fighting Sioux but I don't see that as an issue worth fighting over," Carlson said. "I don't see that we should be running penalties up You lying hypocrite. He actually said that? When? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 He actually said that? When? In this article... http://www.cbssports...in-north-dakota The measure does not include any penalty if UND or the board ignores its directive. The legislation's primary sponsor, Rep. Al Carlson, R-Fargo, the Republican majority leader in the North Dakota House, said he did not support one. "I love the Fighting Sioux but I don't see that as an issue worth fighting over," Carlson said. "I don't see that we should be running penalties up." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Folks were saying before that the state law regarding the moniker was in violation of the state constitution. Well, that allegedly unconstitutional law is active again this morning. The ND SBoHE apparently (if you believe the unconstitutional claim) had it's state constitutional power usurped, again, by the moniker law (or as I like to call it, Carlson's Folly). I'm betting that by close of business today, Feb 8, 2012, the ND SBoHE will file suit claiming that the state law is in violation of the state constitution and thus is void. Takers? No I am good, I will take your word for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Faux News at its best! Before we go bag on Fox News, it's an associated press story, Fox didn't write it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Folks were saying before that the state law regarding the moniker was in violation of the state constitution. Well, that allegedly unconstitutional law is active again this morning. The ND SBoHE apparently (if you believe the unconstitutional claim) had it's state constitutional power usurped, again, by the moniker law (or as I like to call it, Carlson's Folly). I'm betting that by close of business today, Feb 8, 2012, the ND SBoHE will file suit claiming that the state law is in violation of the state constitution and thus is void. Takers? I will take your bet. Grant Shaft is on KNOX radio right now and said that they are trying to arrange a meeting for Monday, and will make a decision that day on whether to challenge the constitutionality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Before we go bag on Fox News, it's an associated press story, Fox didn't write it. Yes, you're correct .... and it's the headline writing that's F'd up; the story is just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 So, here is a question that I have not seen come up in this thread, yet... What if... the repeal initiative goes to a vote. The state votes it down, because we are afraid of what it means to UND with the NCAA and especially the Big Sky. BUT, there is a two-thirds approval in BOTH of the reservation precincts, such as Sioux and Benson Counties? Would the people who are supposedly supporting the rights of native americans in Indianapolis listen to the native vote or the statewide (mostly white) vote, since they are doing this FOR the native americans? Would someone who has a better grasp of the legal side of what is going on here have any ideas? A vote of any kind at Standing Rock is meaningless to the NCAA. The settlement states that Standing Rock can decide in any way available in their Tribal Constitution, and then send that confirmation to the NCAA in writing. The Standing Rock constitution does not allow a vote on an issue like this. The Tribal Council has all the power to make that decision. Their decision for the past 20 years has been to oppose the nickname. A vote on this measure means nothing to the NCAA. In addition, the NCAA told the North Dakota delegation that it is too late to meet the requirements in the settlement. The state had to get approval from both tribes by November 30, 2010. They did not do that. The Standing Rock Tribal Council could vote 100% to approve the nickname today, and the NCAA would say that it's too late. They are going to hold UND and the state to the settlement terms. The only thing that could change this would be if Spirit Lake wins a lawsuit and gets the policy thrown out. That can't happen for at least a couple of years, and their chances of winning are mixed at best. Forcing UND to keep the nickname at this point doesn't help in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I will take your bet. Grant Shaft is on KNOX radio right now and said that they are trying to arrange a meeting for Monday, and will make a decision that day on whether to challenge the constitutionality. Dang. I'd have thought they'd have planned ahead better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 In this article... http://www.cbssports...in-north-dakota The measure does not include any penalty if UND or the board ignores its directive. The legislation's primary sponsor, Rep. Al Carlson, R-Fargo, the Republican majority leader in the North Dakota House, said he did not support one. That, ladies and gentlemen, in poker is called a "tell". Al Carlson just admitted a law without penalty is just a wish aloud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Dang. I'd have thought they'd have planned ahead better. Cant plan ahead too much with open meeting laws as they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Dang. I'd have thought they'd have planned ahead better. It sounds like we should expect a press release to come out soon saying that UND will return to the Fighting Sioux nickname, for now. They are still looking at logistics about what that means and what will be returned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Cant plan ahead too much with open meeting laws as they are. Good point. We've seen how feelings can get hurt if they move too fast. 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.