ScottM Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The SL brief to ND Supreme Court. http://www.grandfork...icle/id/231490/ To dismiss the sacred ceremony of 1969 is to dismiss the Sioux people, and to dismiss the tradition and ceremonies of the Sioux people,” the brief states Which is pretty much what SR did with its own "pipe ceremony" that occurred on its own territory. If they don't recognize it, why should anybody else? Turning this into some bizarre "freedom of religion" argument? Was the Second Amendment too much of a stretch, or will that one show up later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The SL brief to ND Supreme Court. http://www.grandfork...icle/id/231490/ So because it was given it must be used? Admit it: Did you see your dad wear that striped and polka-dot tie you gave him for Father's Day when you were seven? He kept it proudly, on the shelf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Turning this into some bizarre "freedom of religion" argument? Was the Second Amendment too much of a stretch, or will that one show up later? Second Amendment? I was hoping they'd tie it into the Eighteenth and Twenty-first Amendments. Actually, those would have more applicability in this situation (creation and repeal of a law) than trying to create a "freedom of religion" fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Read the actual response (not the GF Herald story): http://legacy.grandforksherald.com/pdfs/doc02728320120306165213.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The issue of a pipe ceremony in 1969 has been brought up many times over the years. I've tried to find information on it in the past and haven't had a lot of luck. I tried again in the past couple of days and haven't come up with a lot of concrete information. Most people seem to agree that something happened. Beyond that there is very little agreement. No one can agree on who was there representing Standing Rock. Some have said that the Tribal Chair was there, some say he wasn't. Some say that this was a religious pipe ceremony to present the name, some say it was just a ceremony to honor President Starcher. Ron His Horse is Thunder has said that the Tribal Chair was part of the group, but the same person later voted against allowing UND to use the name while he was serving on the Tribal Council. The bottom line is that everything about the ceremony is hearsay. That includes exactly what happened and what the intentions were for either the Tribe or UND. There just isn't much written proof, and there is a lot of disagreement about the ceremony. So it is going to be hard for any court to accept that ceremony as gospel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The religious argument is a red herring. The SBoHE is claiming the Legislature passed an unconstitutional law. If that's law is unconstitutional, so it the law undoing it. And if both laws are unconstitutional, why hold an election to reinstate a law that isn't constitutional in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/353348/group/homepage/ Oral arguments next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The religious argument is a red herring. The SBoHE is claiming the Legislature passed an unconstitutional law. If that's law is unconstitutional, so it the law undoing it. And if both laws are unconstitutional, why hold an election to reinstate a law that isn't constitutional in the first place. This is the credited response. Beyond that, Soderstrom diminishes his own argument by claiming that any conflict between constitutional provisions should be decided in favor of the last enacted provision (paragraph 37). So then Mr. Soderstrom, wouldn't Art. VIII, Section 6(6) trump your religious argument under Art. I, Section 3? Moreover, if the Court follows any line of federal jurisprudence, then this is clearly not religious discrimination. Nice try, but strike 1 for the nickname proponents. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Load of crap Dave. Lets make an appointment with Mussman and if he states you are correct, then I will donate $1,000 to the program on the spot. If he doesn't then you agree to leave Siouxsports.com and work to retire the name. As a former UND athlete and coach we do not want people associated with the program that would mistate the facts like you did. If you are so sure of your "inside sources" then PC me and I will make the arrangements. otherwise quit the crap. Being dishonest only hurts your cause. If you would rather, we can make the same appointment with Hakstol after the season. He has more important priorities right now than to meet with a couple of rubes like us til after the season. He had me until he brought up Mussman. Mussman wants the name to go away if it means no BSC. Hakstol might be another story... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The religious argument is a red herring. The SBoHE is claiming the Legislature passed an unconstitutional law. If that's law is unconstitutional, so it the law undoing it. And if both laws are unconstitutional, why hold an election to reinstate a law that isn't constitutional in the first place. Any attorney who can argue "Divine Providence" with a straight face in an appellate court probably doesn't have much else going on ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Any attorney who can argue "Divine Providence" with a straight face in an appellate court probably doesn't have much else going on ... The only place the phrase "Divine Providence" belongs in any UND conversation is in reference to April 8, 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The only place the phrase "Divine Providence" belongs in any UND conversation is in reference to April 8, 2000. A great day that was...UND wins a National title...oh yeah I got married that day too, I watched the ending of the game from the wedding dance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Can the State Supreme Court in their wisdom get to the root cause of a problem. Or do they only deal with that that is in question. Could they some how take this to a new level & ultimately get the US Supreme Court to decide. Say it is just the right thing to do & all this is just bickering that will never go away. Can they cut thru the crap & get to the real meat of the issue ? Or don't they do that ? Seems with Lawyers & contracts & settlements you may not get to the real issues or right & wrong Or do we have to Monkey Fork around & ultimately have many folks unhappy & angry. Who would really be unhappy if we kept the name & ncaa said it was ok - is it a sword they really have to fall on ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Can the State Supreme Court in their wisdom get to the root cause of a problem. Or do they only deal with that that is in question. Could they some how take this to a new level & ultimately get the US Supreme Court to decide. Say it is just the right thing to do & all this is just bickering that will never go away. Can they cut thru the crap & get to the real meat of the issue ? Or don't they do that ? Seems with Lawyers & contracts & settlements you may not get to the real issues or right & wrong I would say just the question in hand....if our 3 idiots in congress would have raised a stink about this in 2005 maybe the US Supreme Court would have gotten involved...its almost too late now seven years after the fact. ND delegates should have gotten on board with Florida's when FSU's name was in question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 more shoulda coulda woulda - but this has been a issue that has evolved & is too complicated now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Could they some how take this to a new level & ultimately get the US Supreme Court to decide. Now you're starting to understand why I say the only, only remaining option is the SL case v. the NCAA. Why that? Because it's in FEDERAL court, not State court. And now you see why I say SL's efforts would all be best directed to that case and that case alone. (The NCAA doesn't have to regard ND State laws.) The NCAA won't respect anything other than a ruling from a Federal court. PS - Unfortunately, I see SL's chances in "SL v. NCAA" as about the same as UAA or MSU-Mankato winning the DI mens hockey title this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Can anyone Lobby the State Supreme Court ? & do you think they are on top of it all ? or only see it or look at it from Constitutional Law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Can anyone Lobby the State Supreme Court ? & do you think they are on top of it all ? or only see it or look at it from Constitutional Law You "lobby" respresentatives in a legislative body (and the lobbying usually involves $$$$$$$$). The NDSC looks at law (constitutional and statutory) and legal precedent and decides based on law and fact. The sides present briefs (documents pointing to law and precedent) to make their arguments. This ends Civics 101 today. Quiz tomorrow class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Can anyone Lobby the State Supreme Court ? & do you think they are on top of it all ? or only see it or look at it from Constitutional Law Their job is to review the law and decide cases based on the law. You don't lobby the Supreme Court. They will review the briefs presented by parties that are determined to have a legal interest. They will listen to oral arguments from those lawyers. They will review the appropriate case law. Then they will render a decision based on the facts as presented and as they understand them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Does anyone know if a ruling will be made that day or if this will take a few days? Also is there an appeal process in case it is unconstitutional or is this the end of the line for Carlson's law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The NDSC is the final arbitrator of constitutionality of state law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I know anything can happen but if I was a betting man what are the odds that the NDSC rules the law unconstitutional? 50-50 shot or is this a 90-10 thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I know anything can happen but if I was a betting man what are the odds that the NDSC rules the law unconstitutional? 50-50 shot or is this a 90-10 thing. More like 1,000,000 to one they will find it unconsitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The SL brief to ND Supreme Court. http://www.grandfork...icle/id/231490/ This brief is crap. Somewhere amongst the hyperbole and bombastic claims, Soderstrom must've addressed the real issue ... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Does anyone know if a ruling will be made that day or if this will take a few days? Also is there an appeal process in case it is unconstitutional or is this the end of the line for Carlson's law. It'll be a few weeks before the decision, but before the ballot printing date, i'm sure. Parties can petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing for 14 days after any decision. But for all practical purposes, it is a process that never comes into play. 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.