News from the Legislature

[Sour1729]

The University has something called constitutional autonomy. The University's charter was incorporated in 1851 by an act of the Territorial Assembly. At statehood, Article XIII, Section 3 of the Minnesota State Constitution set the conditions of the act into the constitution. The following page is a good introduction on how the University has it's constitutional autonomy.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssumca.htm

You could make a credible claim that this restriction on alcohol sales is the Legislature overstepping it's boundaries. That page has four rules that are used to evaluate whether or not it violates the Universty's autonomy, and I think this alcohol restriction violates the first one.

This is more legal mumbo-jumbo this I've processed in some time. I better go have a beer.

Oh that is interesting. Thanks for the link. This is why legal research is so important...people love to create hypothetical Constitutional violations but it is way more complex than it seems on its face.

 

[Sour1729]

I know your just playing devils advocate. But I'm still having a hard time seeing how you equate beer with liberty. I like my beer. But I don't think its quite up to the same level as liberty.

Oh believe me, I'm not saying that is a position I would recommend taking. But I do think that at least some level an argument could be made.

 

[USTGopher]

I have a rather simple solution to this problem. The U should just say that they will sell beer to everyone and sell it for like $20 a glass/bottle. That way people that really really want to drink can and any sane person wouldn't waste there money on it.

Just so you know I'm being sarcastic since I think this is a complete waste of our legislators time. I think handling a huge deficit should take precedence over this stupid issue but I think they are doing exactly what they want. They're drawing attention away from bigger issues by throwing stupid ones like this that really don't matter out there since they have no clue what to do about the deficit.

Along the same lines, the price of beer is main reason that I quit drinking at sporting events altogether. I'm not gonna spend $7 on a watered down beer when I can go buy a 6-pack of something good for that same money and drink it before the game without worries of some drunk guy around me knocking it over.

 

[parkinglotgopher]

Along the same lines, the price of beer is main reason that I quit drinking at sporting events altogether.

For the price of two beers at a sporting event, you can pick up a flask. From that initial investment, you can fill it up for every game at the price of about one beer inside the stadium and get a significantly headier buzz in the process. I highly recommend this.

 

[GoAUpher]

Oh believe me, I'm not saying that is a position I would recommend taking. But I do think that at least some level an argument could be made.

Fair enough. The sad thing is that I don't think this would be even close to the worst/most ridiculous legal argument I've heard put forth.

 

[tjgopher]

What's next?

Suite holders get 42-inch TVs where they sit. Well, let's pass a law that says EVERYONE gets a 42-inch TV at their seat.

Suite holders get portable radiant heaters in their suite. Well, let's pass a law that says EVERYONE gets a portable heater at their seat.

Club seats are padded. Well, let's pass a law that says EVERY seat in the stadium is padded.

Luxury boxes have catered food. Well, let's pass a law that says EVERY paying customer at TCF Bank Stadium gets a catered meal delivered to their seat.

Private suites have a sink and refrigerator in them. Well, let's pass a law saying EVERY seat at TCF must have a sink in front of it and a refrigerator next to it.

Loge seat holders will get use of an elevator. Well, let's pass a law saying EVERY customer at TCF Stadium must use the elevator to get to their seat.

Equal everything for all! Of course, after we make all the changes to conform with the state law requirements that everybody get everything, then capacity is now 8,000 people and ONLY the rich will be able to attend.


I am absolutely baffled with the fascination that "rich" people might get to have a wine cooler or beer and the peasants can't. Here's a little secret... the "rich" people get all kinds of things that the regular people don't get in all walks of life. This is no different. As pointed out, "rich" people get all kinds of stuff at the stadium that the commoners won't get. But, alcohol is all we hear about. What's the big deal about alcohol? So what? Why waste so much energy on it? Why let such a small detail spoil your joy for the new stadium?

Yeah, our state is $5 billion in debt, and we've got lawmakers worried about whether some rich businessman who paid $42,000 for a suite is drinking a beer when a guy who purchased a regular seat for $35 has to drink bottle water. Absolutely amazing.

I will give UpNorth credit. Every time this subject comes up, he comes back for yet another beating on it, no matter how many reasonable and logical arguments are spewed his way.

 

[LC19]

I think this is really funny. All the people were complaining about this rich vs poor beer problem so the legislature got involved. And now, the U can't sell to just the rich, so they'll probably just give them FREE beer instead, like in the barn, and Joe Benchsitter will still sit in the stands without his beer.

YOU JUST GAVE THE PEOPLE YOU HATE FREE BEER.

Brilliant.

This is such a stupid argument. What about food? People in suites and club seats get higher quality food. The TCF Bank Stadium website states that one of the amenities of a private suite is a "•Catered menu with expanded food and beverage choices." Why can't everyone have the good food? Quick, call your state representative! What about parking? Only people who can afford to park in the surface lots get to tailgate, what about the ramp parkers!? We better make the U allow all or none for tailgating, because it's just not fair.

Exactly. Where is the fairness? I'm sick of our, so-called leaders, turning everything into a political debate to win voters for the next election.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

tjgopher Quote: "I will give UpNorth credit. Every time this subject comes up, he comes back for yet another beating on it, no matter how many reasonable and logical arguments are spewed his way."

tj, thank you for that. You are the first GopherHole poster to give me credit for anything other that being a pain in the ass. I get a kick out of you guys for the following reasons:

1) Many of you create a whole lifestyle around getting plastered with your buddies at tailgates before and after college football games. But when I object to the policy against selling beer to adults DURING the games I am clobbered by those very same people who don't understand why I would want to enjoy a beer while watching my favorite team.

2) During two plus years that I have belonged to GopherHole I don't recall any poster who has had anything good to say about the way that the NCAA, the Big 10, and the other major conferences have governed Division I football. They have been criticized for everything from the lack of a national championship playoff system, to no early signing period for recruits, to the national TV contracts. Yet concerning this totally outdated and ineffective rule against selling beer during games, you guys are in the back pocket of the NCAA. I don't get it. The rule does not do anything but prevent guys like me who don't tailgate from enjoying a beer while watching the game. It in no way reduces the amount of alcohol consumed by underage college students. Forty or fifty years ago the there might have been a reason for the prohibition of beer at games, but there is absolutely no logic for it today, and it reduces the amount of revenue that schools can make from intercollegiate sports.

Reason and logic are all on my side, guys. I am not a class warrior who is trying to prevent box seat holders from drinking a beer during games. I just want one too, and I will never agree with the policy against it. You guys are entirely too willing to accept it. Change usually comes from the bottom up and if the taxpayers and ticket buyers who paid for Gopher Stadium rebelled against it the policy would get changed very quickly.

 

[tjgopher]

You guys are entirely too willing to accept it. Change usually comes from the bottom up and if the taxpayers and ticket buyers rebelled against it the policy would get changed very quickly.

No, if the lawmakers pass a law that says the only way rich people get beer is if the commoners get it, then NO ONE will get beer. It is really that simple. Beer with NEVER be sold to the general public at TCF Bank Stadium. Ever.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

President Bruininks has to go hat in hand every year to beg for money from the Legislature. If the Legislature wants a policy changed at the U it will happen. Guaranteed. For proof of that just look at where the light rail line is going. The Met Council wanted it to go down Washington Ave and Bruininks wanted it to go along the east side of the campus. Needless to say the trains will be moving along Washington Avenue in 2 or 3 years.

 

[GoAUpher]

Upnorth:
I get a kick out your stance on this issue too. Let’s recap the myriad of arguments and assertions you’ve trotted out in the last 24 hours:

1) Your first line of argument was based on the illegality of this move and how it infringed upon your (and our) rights and should be attacked as an equal protection issue.

2) You then defend your statement by talking about Prohibition (which has nothing to do with equal protection since it was imposed/repealed by Constitutional amendment and was never, therefore, unconstituational under the 14th amendment) while questioning my hold on reality.

3) You then agree with my assertion that the legislation in question is pointless while asserting that this is all due to the arrogance of the U (and by extension, almost every University in the whole US).

4) Immediately after this post, you then admit that your original argument about rights and equal protection was bogus and that you knew it was bogus when you made it. You then assert that your opinion matters more than a well established policy adopted by universities across the country that has caused little to no uproar until the Gophers moved away from the Dome to TCF.

5) In your next post, you ignore my questions about why you made a baseless equal protection argument you knew to be spurious and instead start confusing other posters objections to the point of your crusade with a hypocritical desire to get plastered before the games while restricting the beer during the game. You also go on to assert that because some of the same folks oppose illogical decisions like the BCS or Facebook groups being ruled a recruiting violation but support this rule (or the U’s right to set this rule) that we are now sellouts and “in the back pocket of the NCAA.”


Wow. This is quite the logical trip you’ve taken us on in 24 hours. To get back to your recent post…

Many of you create a whole lifestyle around getting plastered with your buddies at tailgates before and after college football games. But when I object to the policy against selling beer to adults DURING the games I am clobbered by those very same people who don't understand why I would want to enjoy a beer while watching my favorite team.

I think we all get why you want to enjoy a beer while watching your favorite team. I’ve already said that I agree with you and that I would also like to enjoy a beer at TCF. That has nothing to do with the fact that you have been trotting out silly defense after silly defense of a toothless, pointless, piece of legislation that A) is a waste of taxpayer time and money, B) won’t accomplish what you want, and C) will actually result in the U losing a revenue stream. That is why I’ve been pushing back on everything you’ve said. If you were to stop with “This sucks, I don’t like it, and I wish they’d serve beer at TCF” then you’d get an “Amen” from me and we could both move on to other things while the U goes ahead with following its reasonable and well established policy.

The rule does not do anything but prevent guys like me who don't tailgate from enjoying a beer while watching the game. It in no way reduces the amount of alcohol consumed by underage college students. Forty or fifty years ago the there might have been a reason for the prohibition of beer at games, but there is absolutely no logic for it today, and it reduces the amount of revenue that schools can make from intercollegiate sports.

You site no evidence to back up your claim on student drinking. I’m inclined to agree with you as I think students will always find ways of getting alcohol in to TCF. But here’s the thing. The U isn’t saying this will eliminate/significantly reduce binge drinking or drunk students. The point of the policy is to make sure that those students (especially the underage ones) aren’t getting their alcohol served to them BY THE UNIVERSITY. I also would like to hear why this policy made sense decades ago but not now. I do agree that it reduces potential revenue, but the U obviously knows this and has decided to go with their longstanding policy that is in place everywhere else on campus.

The reason and logic are on my side, guys. I am not a class warrior who is trying to prevent box seat holders from drinking a beer during games. I just want one too, and I will never agree with the policy against it. You guys are entirely too willing to accept it. Change usually comes from the bottom up and if the taxpayers and ticket buyers who paid for Gopher Stadium rebelled against it the policy would get changed very quickly.

Reason and logic are on your side? Um…no. You’ve failed to demonstrate both several times. I also want to get to drink a beer or two at TCF and yes, I am willing to accept that I can’t. That is why everyone is against you btw. Its not that you don’t agree with the policy or that you want it to change. It’s that you toss out over the top arguments and suggest that we all get behind pointless and counterproductive legislation at a time when state lawmakers have more important things to worry about. That, and the fact that you refuse to recognize the validity of any viewpoint but your own.

 

[GoAUpher]

President Bruininks has to go hat in hand every year to beg for money from the Legislature. If the Legislature wants a policy changed at the U it will happen. Guaranteed. For proof of that just look at where the light rail line is going. The Met Council wanted it to go down Washington Ave and Bruininks wanted it to go along the east side of the campus. Needless to say the trains will be moving along Washington Avenue in 2 or 3 years.

Um no. Try again. The U changed is position on where it wanted the LRT line to go b/c the U's preferred path would have resulted in the likely loss of federal funding for the project (see here: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/21/dinkytown/). When that was clear, the U decided it was more important to have LRT run on Wash then not to run at all.

Also, way to ignore GopherRock’s point on Constitutional Autonomy.

 

[BrianW]

That's a pretty good wrapup, GoAU. I would also add under #4 that in the same post he told another poster on this forum (me) to "go f*ck yourself" for stating an opinion that most of us share.

I'll state it again. If the lack of access to $7 glasses of watered down beer is going to reduce your enjoyment of the game so much that you don't want to be there, then DON'T GO TO THE GAME. We don't want you there if all you are going to do is complain that you can't drink beer instead of supporting the team.

And this has nothing to do with how long you or I or anyone have been attending games. I'm not sure where "my born" comes into it, but having attended games at both Memorial and the Dome, I'm just as entitled as anyone to my opinion about which I prefer.

 

[gopheraschells]

does anyone have any thoughts on this no alcohol policy creating (to prolly a greater extent) what it was meant to stop (bingedrinking)???

 

[CP Gopher]

The drinking thing..

I've never understood why people find it necessary to drink themselves silly at a sporting event. I question the common sense of anyone (myself included) who would pay 7 bucks for a cool (not cold), watered-down version of a beer.
The argument of the priveleged getting another luxury is nonsense to me. That's all part of the system. I know it's hard to stomach sometimes, but people of wealth (or connected to wealth) are going to get things the rest of us don't. I learned this when I was 5. It doesn't help to try and change this, because those who have the power to make such a change ARE people of wealth. If you need to drink at the game: Improvise. Fans everywhere do it.
On another topic..
For quite a few years, I was a Viking season ticket holder. We moved all around the dome from 1995-2004. What eventually drove me away was the hardcore excessive drunkenness of a majority of the people there. It didn't matter where we sat, we were always within a few feet of some drunk idiots who believe holding a ticket gives them the right to heap profane verbal abuse on anyone connected to the opposing team. It got to the point where the games were not enjoyable.
A good number of these people have no idea about football, except that they love big hits and touchdowns by the Vikings.
I'm a person who loves the game. I'll have a beer or two. (generally beforehand) I stand up and cheer on 3rd down and big plays. (you can also be loud when sitting) I see no need to consistently stand, or jump out of my seat on every play. It doesn't mean I'm not a vocal supporter.
I love being a Gopher season ticket holder and attending the games.
My big fear is that some look at the new stadium as an opportunity to attend a party. While I'm all for a festive atmosphere, I worry that Gopher Football will turn into a Saturday version of the Viking games.
In closing: I really appreciate this site. Lots of good stuff and great fans on here.

 

[tjgopher]

President Bruininks has to go hat in hand every year to beg for money from the Legislature. If the Legislature wants a policy changed at the U it will happen. Guaranteed. For proof of that just look at where the light rail line is going. The Met Council wanted it to go down Washington Ave and Bruininks wanted it to go along the east side of the campus. Needless to say the trains will be moving along Washington Avenue in 2 or 3 years.

Are you suggesting that the state legislators will MANDATE that beer be sold to the general public at TCF Bank Stadium? Seriously? Not in a million years will lawmakers do that. Ever.

You need to get it through your head that the general public will never, ever legally purchase a bottle of beer inside of TCF Bank Stadium. Ever.

The lawmakers could mandate that if beer is sold in the premium suites, then it must be sold in the regular seats. If they do that, then as I said, NO ONE will get beer.

 

[tjgopher]

You guys are entirely too willing to accept it.

No, I don't think that's the case. I live by the philosophy of "pick your battles." If I am passionate about something, I'll fight for it. But, I'm sorry, I just can't get too worked up over the fact that I won't be able to drink a couple of beers over the course of a 3-hour football game. I don't get why so many people are so worked up over this. In the grand scheme of things, this should rank about 1,286,499,404 on the list of things you should go to the legislature to fight for. Is it really that important to you to drink 3 or 4 bottles of beer at $8 a bottle? To get worked up to the point of telling someone to go f#$@ themselves? To fret about it to the point that you want to create a grassroots groundswell to rush the state capital? Really? For a few beers?

In the meantime, while you are fighting for your "rights" to partake in a couple of beverages, the state budget is in shambles, the roads are crumbling, bridges are falling down, health care is going through the roof (for those who even can afford it), the banking industry is on the verge of collapse, 18-year old Minnesotans are dying in Iraq, and state unemployment is approaching 20-year highs with nearly 9-percent of all the state's adults jobless.

So, yeah, why don't you start a rally on the Capitol Building steps hollering about your rights to drink a beer at a college football game.

 

[4starrecruit]

Excellent post CP Gopher! You are right on the money!

 

[GoAUpher]

That's a pretty good wrapup, GoAU. I would also add under #4 that in the same post he told another poster on this forum (me) to "go f*ck yourself" for stating an opinion that most of us share.

I'll state it again. If the lack of access to $7 glasses of watered down beer is going to reduce your enjoyment of the game so much that you don't want to be there, then DON'T GO TO THE GAME. We don't want you there if all you are going to do is complain that you can't drink beer instead of supporting the team.

And this has nothing to do with how long you or I or anyone have been attending games. I'm not sure where "my born" comes into it, but having attended games at both Memorial and the Dome, I'm just as entitled as anyone to my opinion about which I prefer.

Quick note. My goal hasn't been to paint Upnorth alky. I just found his arguments to be illogical and over the top given given what the argument was about. I've also been bothered by his unwillingness to recognize the legitimacy of the opposite viewpoint. In Upnorth's defense, he's made it very clear that no beer won't stop him from going to or enjoying Gopher games.

While the F-bomb is obviously not the way to get respect for your viewpoint, I don't think he took too kindly to being painted as an alcoholic just because he really wants to be able to drink beer at games. I don't disagree that really drunk fans are beyond annoying. FWIW, I used to be "that guy" (in my defense it was always in the student section where its more the norm) and I feel bad for those I annoyed in the past. But unless you know him personally and can attest otherwise, really wanting to drink beer doesn't automatically equate to drinking too much.