Goon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I see a constitutional ruling challenge on the nickname law if the petition drive is successful. Just a hunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Here is a legal question for everyone. It is a question that I have pondered from time to time but have NO clue as to the answer: If the Attorney General of a state enters into a legally binding agreement that carries forward future obligations forthwich the state is obligated to obide by,such as the NCAA Sioux name settlement, do the people of that state have any recourse if they do not concur with that said contract thereby excersized by a single individual regardless of his rank as the states Attorney General? If the answer is no, then it seems that the position of Attorney General possesses a quite large sum of power individually?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 My point is that a little more due care employed would have gone a long way. Kelley and Johnson were a bit rash and lacking in foresight in bowling headlong into this "scrubbing" foray 2 seconds after the repeal law was passed. They didn't do it because they had a hard on to get rid of the name, they did it because they kept getting calls, letters and e-mails from their bosses in Bismarck, concerned and influential alums and watchdogs elsewhere who kept finding references to the nickname and logo in hidden crevasses on the website. The verbage "hunt down" and "scrub" wasn't the best choice of words in the PC sense, and it sure made for a nice sound byte for the save-the-name-at-all-costs crowd to rile up the masses, but it had nothing to do with anyone's feelings toward the nickname. Besides, since when did that crowd turn into the thought police, regulating the words people choose to use? Hypocrite much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Here is a legal question for everyone. It is a question that I have pondered from time to time but have NO clue as to the answer: If the Attorney General of a state enters into a legally binding agreement that carries forward future obligations forthwich the state is obligated to o bide by,such as the NCAA Sioux name settlement, do the people of that state have any recourse if they do not concur with that said contract thereby excersized by a single individual regardless of his rank as the states Attorney General? If the answer is no, then it seems that the position of Attorney General possesses a quite large sum of power individually?? I would say no because he was voted into to office by the People of North Dakota. He represents the people of North Dakota and he has a lot of power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 They didn't do it because they had a hard on to get rid of the name, they did it because they kept getting calls, letters and e-mails from their bosses in Bismarck, concerned and influential alums and watchdogs elsewhere who kept finding references to the nickname and logo in hidden crevasses on the website. The verbage "hunt down" and "scrub" wasn't the best choice of words in the PC sense, and it sure made for a nice sound byte for the save-the-name-at-all-costs crowd to rile up the masses, but it had nothing to do with anyone's feelings toward the nickname. Besides, since when did that crowd turn into the thought police, regulating the words people choose to use? Hypocrite much? Dragging out the "thought police" imagery misses the point entirely. After the ongoing bungling ("bungling" presumes an element of at least artless sincerity, which we know did not exist in the first place) of the matter by the UND officials and the SBoHE and after various overt examples by the SBoHE that good faith was no where to be found, anyone with any degree of ordinary common sense should have seen that such verbiage and haste would do nothing but add fire to the situation. Perhaps they didn't really think about it. Unbelievable that they didn't since the Legislature itself certainly got it which is why it came up with the 3 year "cooling off" period in the first place. Message: Do nothing for 3 years, except use the "North Dakota" reference. Simple. Succinct. Not hard to grasp or follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Dragging out the "thought police" imagery misses the point entirely. After the ongoing bungling ("bungling" presumes an element of at least artless sincerity, which we know did not exist in the first place) of the matter by the UND officials and the SBoHE and after various overt examples by the SBoHE that good faith was no where to be found, anyone with any degree of ordinary common sense should have seen that such verbiage and haste would do nothing but add fire to the situation. Perhaps they didn't really think about it. Unbelievable that they didn't since the Legislature itself certainly got it which is why it came up with the 3 year "cooling off" period in the first place. Message: Do nothing for 3 years, except use the "North Dakota" reference. Simple. Succinct. Not hard to grasp or follow. UND went under the NCAA sanctions on August 15, 2011. So, they had been under the sanctions for approximately 3 months by the time the legislature changed the law. And they had about 3 months before the women's hockey team was the first team to feel the real effects of the sanctions. How long did you expect them to wait to make the changes? Would another month have made you feel better? Six months? 7 years? This argument, that nickname forever supporters got their feelings hurt, is possibly the weakest yet. Face it, the fact that it was going to be changed at any time was just too much. It doesn't matter how much things may hurt the University, the fact that your feelings were hurt makes all your efforts worth it. You and the rest have no regard for the University. It is all about you and what you want. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sioux87 Posted February 7, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'm a huge supporter of the name, but enough is enough! I dislike the control of the NCAA, and think it is over reaching. I feel the PC crowd is ruinning our country and needs to be stopped. I also feel the only way we ever get the NCAA to change how they look at us is by Spirit Lake and STANDING ROCK to grant us the use of the name! Anything else wil hurt the University! So as hard as it is for me to let go, I have come to the conclusion it is time. LONG LIVE THE FIGHTING SIOUX MEMORIES!!! FLAME AWAY! 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Here is a legal question for everyone. It is a question that I have pondered from time to time but have NO clue as to the answer: If the Attorney General of a state enters into a legally binding agreement that carries forward future obligations forthwich the state is obligated to obide by,such as the NCAA Sioux name settlement, do the people of that state have any recourse if they do not concur with that said contract thereby excersized by a single individual regardless of his rank as the states Attorney General? If the answer is no, then it seems that the position of Attorney General possesses a quite large sum of power individually?? The short answer to your question is yes. The AG is a very powerful position. And I don't believe that there is a way to fight a settled court case. But your question doesn't actually apply in this case. The AG was working for the State Board of Higher Education. The AG's office tried the case and negotiated the settlement. The SBoHE worked with them on the case, and were the ones that decided to accept the settlement. I would assume that the president of the board signed the agreement. It is binding on the SBoHE, the University of North Dakota and the state of North Dakota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 UND went under the NCAA sanctions on August 15, 2011. So, they had been under the sanctions for approximately 3 months by the time the legislature changed the law. And they had about 3 months before the women's hockey team was the first team to feel the real effects of the sanctions. How long did you expect them to wait to make the changes? Would another month have made you feel better? Six months? 7 years? This argument, that nickname forever supporters got their feelings hurt, is possibly the weakest yet. Face it, the fact that it was going to be changed at any time was just too much. It doesn't matter how much things may hurt the University, the fact that your feelings were hurt makes all your efforts worth it. You and the rest have no regard for the University. It is all about you and what you want. It's not about "hurt feelings." For the SBoHE, it was/is about achieving a result. It's about doing things in a way that is obviously counterproductive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 It's not about "hurt feelings." For the SBoHE, it was/is about achieving a result. It's about doing things in a way that is obviously counterproductive. The notion that the SBoHE is alone on the "counterproductive" side here is laughable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The short answer to your question is yes. The AG is a very powerful position. And I don't believe that there is a way to fight a settled court case. But your question doesn't actually apply in this case. The AG was working for the State Board of Higher Education. The AG's office tried the case and negotiated the settlement. The SBoHE worked with them on the case, and were the ones that decided to accept the settlement. I would assume that the president of the board signed the agreement. It is binding on the SBoHE, the University of North Dakota and the state of North Dakota. Precisely. Whatever Stenjhem signed in 2007 he did so in his capacity as Attorney General on behalf of the people of North Dakota, and it is binding now and forever, and it binds his "heirs, successors and assigns", to thow out some boiler plate settlement language. The reason people settle is to have some finality to the case, and avoid the uncertainty and costs of litigation. Generally the only way a settlement can be modified or vacated is by the consent of both parties, or if one party breaches the agreement. None of which has happened here. UND and the board agreed to a contract's terms, and the NC$$ has every right to hold up its end by imposing sanctions on UND and its student-athletes. I'm not sure why certain people presume that somehow Kelley et al. were responsible for this mess. However, I suspect in their quest to use UND as a political pawn they started to believe their own drivel, and have started writing checks UND will need to cash. As I've stated before, these people do not care about the university or its students, but only seek to hang the moniker around the school's neck like an albatross for their own myopic, political ends. And in some cases so they can wander around REA with their beer soaked Sioux jerseys and not look as foolish as they do here. The settlement was and is fully enforceable. No amount of political posturing, wrapping oneself in the US Constitution or the Rights of Man or the Magna Carta, and no number of illegible petitions and pointless lawsuits by people who have no standing will change that. UND and its students are being hung out to dry by Carlson, Hennen, Soderstrom, etc, 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 If it is ruled unconstitutional is it over until the SL lawsuit? Or can they try to appeal or come up with more petitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Precisely. Whatever Stenjhem signed in 2007 he did so in his capacity as Attorney General on behalf of the people of North Dakota, and it is binding now and forever, and it binds his "heirs, successors and assigns", to thow out some boiler plate settlement language. The reason people settle is to have some finality to the case, and avoid the uncertainty and costs of litigation. Generally the only way a settlement can be modified or vacated is by the consent of both parties, or if one party breaches the agreement. None of which has happened here. UND and the board agreed to a contract's terms, and the NC$$ has every right to hold up its end by imposing sanctions on UND and its student-athletes. I'm not sure why certain people presume that somehow Kelley et al. were responsible for this mess. However, I suspect in their quest to use UND as a political pawn they started to believe their own drivel, and have started writing checks UND will need to cash. As I've stated before, these people do not care about the university or its students, but only seek to hang the moniker around the school's neck like an albatross for their own myopic, political ends. And in some cases so they can wander around REA with their beer soaked Sioux jerseys and not look as foolish as they do here. The settlement was and is fully enforceable. No amount of political posturing, wrapping oneself in the US Constitution or the Rights of Man or the Magna Carta, and no number of illegible petitions and pointless lawsuits by people who have no standing will change that. UND and its students are being hung out to dry by Carlson, Hennen, Soderstrom, etc, How about asking for a new trial based upon having incompetent counsel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 How about asking for a new trial based upon having incompetent counsel? If Stenjhem had prosecuted the litigation himself, that might be worth a "hail Mary", especially if we had pictures of Myles Brand and Wayne downing pitchers of Mai-Tais in a secluded bar ... However, we did have a very good outside firm working our end. Frankly, we got hosed because NoDak's congressional delegation never said "boo!" about the whole thing, or about the NC$$. We had zero leverage to fight the NC$$ in a meaningful way. Compare North Dakota's MIA congressmen to those of Florida, Utah and even Ilinois when the H&A list came out, and look at the contrasting results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 If it is ruled unconstitutional is it over until the SL lawsuit? Or can they try to appeal or come up with more petitions. As I understand the Contracts Clause (from Con Law ten years ago) , usually the only thing that can alter a state's legally binding contractual obligations is a court decision. There is a test that allows states some wiggle room, but it is a high bar. A logo in a jersey wont cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Did I read that any petition that contains a ficticious name invalids every signature on that petition? So if a person intentionally were to write a ficticious name on a petition...just sayin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 If Stenjhem had prosecuted the litigation himself, that might be worth a "hail Mary", especially if we had pictures of Myles Brand and Wayne downing pitchers of Mai-Tais in a secluded bar ... However, we did have a very good outside firm working our end. Frankly, we got hosed because NoDak's congressional delegation never said "boo!" about the whole thing, or about the NC$$. We had zero leverage to fight the NC$$ in a meaningful way. Compare North Dakota's MIA congressmen to those of Florida, Utah and even Ilinois when the H&A list came out, and look at the contrasting results. I wonder if that group of congressmen, Democrats all, misjudged the support of Native Americans on this issue? Let's face it, as a politician, they probably saw the strong Democratic tribal support as critical to them and may have figured that the tribes were very opposed to the nickname, thus, allowing that name to be thrown under the bus. (I, myself am a Democrat and am just thinking about the political angle here.) They may have errored greatly in that decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Did I read that any petition that contains a ficticious name invalids every signature on that petition? So if a person intentionally were to write a ficticious name on a petition...just sayin... Yes you did read that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I wonder if that group of congressmen, Democrats all, misjudged the support of Native Americans on this issue? Let's face it, as a politician, they probably saw the strong Democratic tribal support as critical to them and may have figured that the tribes were very opposed to the nickname, thus, allowing that name to be thrown under the bus. (I, myself am a Democrat and am just thinking about the political angle here.) They may have errored greatly in that decision. I think about the different outcomes, and doubt it was partisan, especially since Hoeven as governor when the H&A list came out. Do most North Dakota polticos really care about Indian Country anyway? IIRC Florida's congressional delegation was a mix of Dems and GOP, and look at the FSU result. I also wonder why those who made it such a political matter recently didn't lean on the delegation to look at the NC$$ directly last summer. Anybody with a mail order GED or better could tell you that any legislation passed in Bismarck would have zero impact on the NC$$. Said it before, and I'll say it again, anybody signing petitions should not vote for any incumbents in North Dakota's delegation this November. Put your money and votes where your mouth is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoHawks! Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I think about the different outcomes, and doubt it was partisan, especially since Hoeven as governor when the H&A list came out. Do most North Dakota polticos really care about Indian Country anyway? IIRC Florida's congressional delegation was a mix of Dems and GOP, and look at the FSU result. I also wonder why those who made it such a political matter recently didn't lean on the delegation to look at the NC$$ directly last summer. Anybody with a mail order GED or better could tell you that any legislation passed in Bismarck would have zero impact on the NC$$. Said it before, and I'll say it again, anybody signing petitions should not vote for any incumbents in North Dakota's delegation this November. Put your money and votes where your mouth is. Not going to turn this into a political debate, but this is very true for many reasons. They truly are MIA in ND. Sick of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I think about the different outcomes, and doubt it was partisan, especially since Hoeven as governor when the H&A list came out. Do most North Dakota polticos really care about Indian Country anyway? IIRC Florida's congressional delegation was a mix of Dems and GOP, and look at the FSU result. I also wonder why those who made it such a political matter recently didn't lean on the delegation to look at the NC$$ directly last summer. Anybody with a mail order GED or better could tell you that any legislation passed in Bismarck would have zero impact on the NC$$. Said it before, and I'll say it again, anybody signing petitions should not vote for any incumbents in North Dakota's delegation this November. Put your money and votes where your mouth is. That's exactly what they are doing. A prominent UND alum lives right by Berg in Fargo. I'm sure there's heat being applied. That said, anyone would be preferable to Heitkamp in the Senate for ND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I think about the different outcomes, and doubt it was partisan, especially since Hoeven as governor when the H&A list came out. Do most North Dakota polticos really care about Indian Country anyway? IIRC Florida's congressional delegation was a mix of Dems and GOP, and look at the FSU result. I also wonder why those who made it such a political matter recently didn't lean on the delegation to look at the NC$$ directly last summer. Anybody with a mail order GED or better could tell you that any legislation passed in Bismarck would have zero impact on the NC$$. Said it before, and I'll say it again, anybody signing petitions should not vote for any incumbents in North Dakota's delegation this November. Put your money and votes where your mouth is. Well, it makes a bigger difference in North Dakota (4.8% Native American) than Florida (0.4% Native American). But, you might be right in the fact that even strong Republican politicians in North Dakota never made much of a fuss over losing the name. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/rank/aiea.txt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
108498 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I can't believe alot of you are ready to let a tradition like this move on. I would much rather see the school return to division 2 then to see the state give up on the name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoHawks! Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I can't believe alot of you are ready to let a tradition like this move on. I would much rather see the school return to division 2 then to see the state give up on the name. A move to NCAA Division II would make no difference. The NAIA would work though. (does not sponsor hockey) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I can't believe alot of you are ready to let a tradition like this move on. I would much rather see the school return to division 2 then to see the state give up on the name. State legally gave up on the name already. Everything else is just very annoying noise. 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.