Let's settle the beer debate once and forever

Donate To GopherHole
O

Oneoldgopher

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
668
Reaction score
0
Points
16
It has been argued on this board that the U has autonomy to control beer sales at TCF or anywhere else. I have lost most of my credibility prior to this thread, so knock me over with a feather as I most certainly over-reached my education on the law. However, nobody has ever taken on where the "authority" of the U has been derived to reject the direction given to it by State Act.

I have looked at the Morrill land grant Act, it mentions nothing about autonomy from any states control. The only thing Morrill does is authorize land to raise funds for schools in the western states. That they have 3 years to agree to the act. That they must invest the funds raised from either the sale of the lands or to make available those lands to construct at least one college in the territory or state that elects to form the college. The University of Minnesota complies with that and also complies with the Morrill Act by reporting any improvements or inventions it creates.

As for the U being its own autonomous authority, I have yet to ever find a law, Federal or State, or any act of Congress that authorizes it to say "no" to a state law.

Somebody please cite for me in chapter and verse where such autonomy, authority, or right has been granted to the University of Minnesota to disregard a law of the State of Minnesota directing it to comply with the articles of any law it enacts. I just want to know if I am wrong or not.
 

No one is claiming that the U has a right to say "no" to a state law. What is claimed is that the legislature exceeded its authority in attempting to dictate alcohol policy on the University of Minnesota. As it stands, the U has to follow this law, but if they were to challenge it in court, it would be an easy win for the U.
 

This should settle the beer debate: The state of Minnesota legislature used the issue as chips for their ridiculous card games played at the capital. A drunk democrat who is a communist led the charge to prohibit beer sales if it was not accessible to everyone. The new and revised law says the university can have beer sales if at least 30% can have access. This session, it is expected that the law will be changed to the original law....which is no law concerning beer sales. I have never heard anyone say the U should say no to a law and doubt they can.
 


Damn, I was hoping this was a debate about beer and not whether or not the U can sell beer. My favorite beer is Andechs Helles closely followed by Augustiner and Bitburger.
 


RodentRampage said:
Nonsense, this bill had wide bipartisan support.
Click to expand...

" The new law allows the University of Minnesota to serve alcohol in premium seating as long as alcohol is served in one-third of the general seating area. The law allows university officials to decide where in that one-third alcohol would be served. The new law was passed 62-2 in the Senate and 124-4 in the House of Representatives."

Plus big time support of Gov. Pawlenty who apparently is a drunken communist!
 

One time in college, I drank some Blatz beer in the dorm. I didn't have a cooler or a fridge, so we put the ice cubes in the beer. And yes, it was kind of disgusting. But it was college. I remember the generic fad, and there was plain white cans that said "BEER".
 

Even if the legislature overstepped their authority, the state still controls who can have a liquor license.
 

its plain and simple. People will still be drinking in the stadium, the U should just be smart enough to make money off it.
 



RodentRampage said:
One time in college, I drank some Blatz beer in the dorm. I didn't have a cooler or a fridge, so we put the ice cubes in the beer. And yes, it was kind of disgusting. But it was college. I remember the generic fad, and there was plain white cans that said "BEER".
Click to expand...

The key is to take the ice cubes out before they melt.
 


For some reason my dad always drinks his beer on ice. I find it weird.
 

gophmeister said:
Damn, I was hoping this was a debate about beer and not whether or not the U can sell beer. My favorite beer is Andechs Helles closely followed by Augustiner and Bitburger.
Click to expand...

That's what i was hoping too Gophermeister! Thought it was a local beer battle! I'd take Surly with a slight edge over Summit. My favorite international beer - Smoked Beer from Schlenkerla!

:drink:
 



I think the gist is that the U predates the State. And reflecting this fact in the state constitution it says: "Sec. 3. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. All the rights, immunities, franchises and endowments heretofore granted or conferred upon the University of Minnesota are perpetuated unto the university." (Article XIII)

So whatever "rights" the U had in 1857 would be kept in perpetuity.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/Article13.htm

Nothing to do with the Morrill Act or land-grant status.
 


Iceland12 said:
" The new law allows the University of Minnesota to serve alcohol in premium seating as long as alcohol is served in one-third of the general seating area. The law allows university officials to decide where in that one-third alcohol would be served. The new law was passed 62-2 in the Senate and 124-4 in the House of Representatives."

Plus big time support of Gov. Pawlenty who apparently is a drunken communist!
Click to expand...

GopherJay didn't say only drunken communists voted for the bill.. He said the law was headed up by a drunk communist. There's a difference. Comprehension fail
 

Hoop33 said:
That's what i was hoping too Gophermeister! Thought it was a local beer battle! I'd take Surly with a slight edge over Summit. My favorite international beer - Smoked Beer from Schlenkerla!

:drink:
Click to expand...

My wife likes Surly a lot, but she, like the owners, is a Mac grad. I am not particularly fond of ales, but I do like Summit EPA and will drink it without complaint. I learned to drink beer as a teenager in Germany high up in the Alps, which explains my taste for German beers. Still, I've never been able to find a taste for Rauchbier. I've been to Bamberg however and when I was there I stayed in a room above a tavern.
 

Formo said:
GopherJay didn't say only drunken communists voted for the bill.. He said the law was headed up by a drunk communist. There's a difference. Comprehension fail
Click to expand...

Well, since he's not a communist you could also argue the original description was FAIL too.
 

Formo said:
GopherJay didn't say only drunken communists voted for the bill.. He said the law was headed up by a drunk communist. There's a difference. Comprehension fail
Click to expand...

More like a sense of humor failure on your part.
 

gophmeister said:
My wife likes Surly a lot, but she, like the owners, is a Mac grad. I am not particularly fond of ales, but I do like Summit EPA and will drink it without complaint. I learned to drink beer as a teenager in Germany high up in the Alps, which explains my taste for German beers. Still, I've never been able to find a taste for Rauchbier. I've been to Bamberg however and when I was there I stayed in a room above a tavern.
Click to expand...

Rauchbier is liking sipping on a smoked steak, love it! :)

Buddy of mine just brought a glass from that brewery back for me.
 

Iceland12 said:
" The new law allows the University of Minnesota to serve alcohol in premium seating as long as alcohol is served in one-third of the general seating area. The law allows university officials to decide where in that one-third alcohol would be served. The new law was passed 62-2 in the Senate and 124-4 in the House of Representatives."



Easy solution. Sell alcohol in the suites as planned. Sell beer in general seats @ $20,000 per glass.:cool02:
Click to expand...
 

gopherjay said:
This should settle the beer debate: The state of Minnesota legislature used the issue as chips for their ridiculous card games played at the capital. A drunk democrat who is a communist led the charge to prohibit beer sales if it was not accessible to everyone. The new and revised law says the university can have beer sales if at least 30% can have access. This session, it is expected that the law will be changed to the original law....which is no law concerning beer sales. I have never heard anyone say the U should say no to a law and doubt they can.
Click to expand...

Good old Tommy Rukavina wanted all of us to be treated equally, he certainly does not understand that in life sometimes people are willing to pay more for certain goods and services. IMO his reasoning was stupid and the end result really hurt the pocketbook of the University at a time when the University is exploring many ways to raise revenue. Not to mention really tick off a core base of suite holders.
 

He didn't do this all himself, again, this bill had wide bipartisan support.
 

Stan The Caddy said:
Good old Tommy Rukavina wanted all of us to be treated equally, he certainly does not understand that in life sometimes people are willing to pay more for certain goods and services. IMO his reasoning was stupid and the end result really hurt the pocketbook of the University at a time when the University is exploring many ways to raise revenue. Not to mention really tick off a core base of suite holders.
Click to expand...

Are you speaking as a member of the core base or just a spokesperson?
 

Stan The Caddy said:
Good old Tommy Rukavina wanted all of us to be treated equally, he certainly does not understand that in life sometimes people are willing to pay more for certain goods and services. IMO his reasoning was stupid and the end result really hurt the pocketbook of the University at a time when the University is exploring many ways to raise revenue. Not to mention really tick off a core base of suite holders.
Click to expand...

"The new law was passed 62-2 in the Senate and 124-4 in the House of Representatives.""

Must be a pretty persuasive son-of-a gun.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom