82SiouxGuy Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Not true whatsoever. Direct legislative control of higher education ended in 1913. The State Board was created in 1939 to replace the Board of Administration, which was filled by gubernatorial appointments without legislative ratification. Now, membership to the state board requires the Senate's approval. In fact, the State Board was established to further the legislature's presence. You are correct, I was combining some history in my mind. I guess it's a sign of age. It was the Governor and the Board of Administration that fired the President of the ag school and 7 professors in 1937, which caused the school to lose its accreditation. The Governor personally hired the President of UND in 1933 without any input from the BoA. The SBoHE was put in place to have some form of checks and balances and put at least a little buffer between higher education and direct political control. But I still believe that the SB is needed to keep the legislature from trying to take too much control of every detail of higher education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 You are correct, I was combining some history in my mind. I guess it's a sign of age. It was the Governor and the Board of Administration that fired the President of the ag school and 7 professors in 1937, which caused the school to lose its accreditation. The Governor personally hired the President of UND in 1933 without any input from the BoA. The SBoHE was put in place to have some form of checks and balances and put at least a little buffer between higher education and direct political control. But I still believe that the SB is needed to keep the legislature from trying to take too much control of every detail of higher education. Absolutely agree. I have my concerns with the legislature's decision-making as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Basically, the holding was that SL had no right to interfere with a contractual arrangement between the state and the NC$$, and it also took apart their attempts at establishing standing without explicitly telling SL "you don't have it". I'd wager the very same analysis will reappear in some respects in the federal litigation SL is waging against the NC$$. I do find it interesting that Pat Morley's firm represented SL in the state action, is missing from the current federal action and represented REA against the petition crowd ... They probably could not afford to pay him and Ralph's foundation could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Scott, Am I the only one that thinks a challenge under the contracts clause will be the better route? It doesn't flaunt constitutional authority of the Board and it could head off a potential amendment. I'm with you on this. I keep trying to come up with a compelling argument as to how the statute/proposed constitutional amendment could possibly NOT conflict with Art. I, Sec. 18 of the ND Constitution, and I honestly can't think of a good one (granted, it's been nearly 20 years since I took con. law, and it was hardly my best subject ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm with you on this. I keep trying to figure out a compelling argument as to how the statute/proposed constitutional amendment could possibly NOT conflict with Art. I, Sec. 18 of the ND Constitution, and I honestly can't think of a good one (granted, it's been nearly 20 years since I took con. law, and it was hardly my best subject ). Section 18. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed. The response to I.18 will be that the contract is not impaired, meaning that it can be folllowed through (under the 'sanctions' portion). So the question I have is this: Is a contract impared if it gives two options and only one is impaired? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm with you on this. I keep trying to come up with a compelling argument as to how the statute/proposed constitutional amendment could possibly NOT conflict with Art. I, Sec. 18 of the ND Constitution, and I honestly can't think of a good one (granted, it's been nearly 20 years since I took con. law, and it was hardly my best subject ). To me this is a slam dunk. The authority of the board in the constitution doesn't have to be mentioned. All parties are better off (save the anti higher ed cranks) if the contracts clause is the primary challenge. We will see what kind of intestinal fortitude the Attorney General has. The legislature (in my view illegally) crapped all over the deal he made as the chief legal officer of North Dakota. If he was any kind of AG, he would defend his office and the deal he signed. We will see what comes from his meeting with higher ed board today. Would one have to be a party to the contract to have standing? Or could say the UND Alumni Association as a group suffering harm, bring suit under the ND version of the contracts clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Section 18. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed. The response to I.18 will be that the contract is not impaired, meaning that it can be folllowed through (under the 'sanctions' portion). So the question I have is this: Is a contract impared if it gives two options and only one is impaired? IMO, it doesn't pass the smell test to say that if there are remedies build into the contract then the contracts clause doesn't apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm not a lawyer, but there's some interesting reading here under "The Contract Clause Since Blaisdell". "Succinctly, there is more scrutiny when the government modifies a contract to alter its own obligations." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 To me this is a slam dunk. The authority of the board in the constitution doesn't have to be mentioned. All parties are better off (save the anti higher ed cranks) if the contracts clause is the primary challenge. We will see what kind of intestinal fortitude the Attorney General has. The legislature (in my view illegally) crapped all over the deal he made as the chief legal officer of North Dakota. If he was any kind of AG, he would defend his office and the deal he signed. We will see what comes from his meeting with higher ed board today. Would one have to be a party to the contract to have standing? Or could say the UND Alumni Association as a group suffering harm, bring suit under the ND version of the contracts clause. Good question--I am not sure. I agree that Stenehjem needs to step up to the plate here. While I certainly don't condone his previous inaction at the time the statute was first enacted, I'm not necessarily surprised that he didn't want to tick off his political allies. But the game has changed now, as it's not a board of higher ed. vs. legislature battle anymore. He needs to defend the deal he made, or get the hell out of the way and resign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Didn't the Supreme Court dispose of the issue when it stated that because the settlement agreement merged into the final judgment that this was no longer a contract, but rather a court judgment? Or does the contracts clause apply to court judgments as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/229348/ 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.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 maybe we can get the AG to ask for the Supreme Court to rule on the SL case at the same time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 maybe we can get the AG to ask for the Supreme Court to rule on the SL case at the same time Different lawsuits, different jurisdictions. The Spirit Lake lawsuit is in Federal court, the ND Supreme Court will be making a decision on a ND State law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WYOBISONMAN Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Every one of us......UND or NDSU fan......better be hoping the SBOHE prevails on this lawsuit. This is one of those occasions where UND and NDSU would be hurt by a ruling supporting Carlson and the assclowns in the legislature. That is assuming you care about your entire University rather than just the Hockey program....... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 That is assuming you care about your entire University rather than just the Hockey program....... You did that on purpose, didn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Every one of us......UND or NDSU fan......better be hoping the SBOHE prevails on this lawsuit. This is one of those occasions where UND and NDSU would be hurt by a ruling supporting Carlson and the assclowns in the legislature. That is assuming you care about your entire University rather than just the Hockey program....... Prevails on what grounds? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the tremendous power grab that the executive branch may come away with at the expense of the legislature rather than a university's nickname? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 And the filing has happened ... http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/351219/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 And the filing has happened ... http://www.inforum.c...icle/id/351219/ But this has to be wrong, Sic-->No??!! The lawsuit seeks to stop a public vote on a state law that requires the University of North Dakota to use its Fighting Sioux nickname. Nickname supporters have filed referendum petitions asking for a vote There was never a mention of stopping the vote. The entire discussion was about challenging the constitutionality of Carlson's law. Now, whether an "unconstitutional" ruling stops the vote, that's a different question. The ruling would have to come out long enough before ballots are printed, or the question is either going to be on the ballot or ballots will have to be reprinted (great more time and money spent on the issue). If the ballots go to voters with the question on them, and the ruling is "unconstitutional" then the arguement will be over whether the votes should be counted regardless . . . just to see ya know!! Whatever the results, each side will question whether people actually voted the way they did but for the court ruling, whether everyone who would have voted ya or nay actually bothered to vote, etc. It's gonna take a while for all this to be officially "over"!! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 But this has to be wrong, Sic-->No??!! There was never a mention of stopping the vote. The entire discussion was about challenging the constitutionality of Carlson's law. Now, whether an "unconstitutional" ruling stops the vote, that's a different question. The ruling would have to come out long enough before ballots are printed, or the question is either going to be on the ballot or ballots will have to be reprinted (great more time and money spent on the issue). If the ballots go to voters with the question on them, and the ruling is "unconstitutional" then the arguement will be over whether the votes should be counted regardless . . . just to see ya know!! Whatever the results, each side will question whether people actually voted the way they did but for the court ruling, whether everyone who would have voted ya or nay actually bothered to vote, etc. It's gonna take a while for all this to be officially "over"!! . What happened to that?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Could they be referencing a "contracts clause" challenge to the proposed state constitutional amendment process? Or if the NDSC rules that the first law didn't exist and correspondingly the second law didn't exist, there's nothing to vote on in June. Or both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Prevails on what grounds? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the tremendous power grab that the executive branch may come away with at the expense of the legislature rather than a university's nickname? Tremendous power grab? Choosing a nickname is a tremendous power grab? ND's executive is one of the constitutionally weakest in the country, if not THE weakest. Cripes, its illegal for the Governor to even threaten a veto. I'm more concerned about a reckless legislature pissing all over the duly elected attorney general and a settlement he signed on behalf of ND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Tremendous power grab? Choosing a nickname is a tremendous power grab? Absolutely. In fact, it is so tremendous that the SBHE has filed a lawsuit directly to our state's highest court in order to retire that very nickname, which is what you want, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/229764/ In a letter today to Stenehjem, Jaeger asked that “because you have determined to represent (the State Board), I request that you appoint counsel to represent me … in my official capacity.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/229764/ More detail 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.