News from the Legislature

[gopheraddict]

Students at state colleges and universities in Minnesota would see limited tuition increases in the next two years under a budget bill the state House approved on Wednesday.

The college spending bill would use $180 million in federal stimulus money to cap increases at $300 a year at the University of Minnesota and at 2 percent a year at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) schools.

The higher education bill also would prevent the University of Minnesota from limiting alcohol sales to premium seating areas in the new Gopher football stadium set to open on Sept. 12. A university liquor license would have to apply to the entire stadium or not at all.

The vote was 86-46.

 

[LC19]

The higher education bill also would prevent the University of Minnesota from limiting alcohol sales to premium seating areas in the new Gopher football stadium set to open on Sept. 12. A university liquor license would have to apply to the entire stadium or not at all.

The vote was 86-46.

So what about Mariucci and Williams then? They don't serve alcohol to everyone. Seems like political games at it's finest once again. I still didn't see the issue with restricting to premium folks, they are paying lots more for some beneifts I would hope. Minnesota = Land of Entitlement.

 

[Maximus]

I could be wrong, but this bill won't stop the U from giving away the beer for free in the premium areas at TCF just like they do in the club rooms at Williams and Mariucci. They will choose to not sell beer anywhere. Maybe someone better connected can confirm.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Yes!!! All you fans who like to enjoy a beer (or two) at Gopher football games should call or write your state legislator and let them know that you want your rights protected at Gopher Stadium, and that you will be watching how they vote on this issue. There is no need for Gopher fans who cannot afford premium seats to roll over and take it up the rear end just because the Big 10 or NCAA frowns on it. Gopher Stadium is being built with public funds and this is an equal protection issue. If the legislature doesn't cooperate with us, maybe a class action lawsuit will get their attention.

 

[howeda7]

Yes!!! All you fans who like to enjoy a beer (or two) at Gopher football games should call or write your state legislator and let them know that you want your rights protected at Gopher Stadium, and that you will be watching how they vote on this issue. There is no need for Gopher fans who cannot afford premium seats to roll over and take it up the rear end just because the Big 10 or NCAA frowns on it. Gopher Stadium is being built with public funds and this is an equal protection issue. If the legislature doesn't cooperate with us, maybe a class action lawsuit will get their attention.

Good lord. Are you going to sue your local HS too so you can have a brew on Friday nights? There is no alcohol 'sold' at most on-campus college football stadiums accross the country. That doesn't mean you don't find empty miniature bottles of everything known to man in every bathroom stall. Get creative or go without for 3 hours. It won't kill you.

I wouldn't be surpised if the NCAA raises a ruckus if this bill passes.

 

[GoAUpher]

Yes!!! All you fans who like to enjoy a beer (or two) at Gopher football games should call or write your state legislator and let them know that you want your rights protected at Gopher Stadium, and that you will be watching how they vote on this issue. There is no need for Gopher fans who cannot afford premium seats to roll over and take it up the rear end just because the Big 10 or NCAA frowns on it. Gopher Stadium is being built with public funds and this is an equal protection issue. If the legislature doesn't cooperate with us, maybe a class action lawsuit will get their attention.

Drinking beer is not a right and this is not an equal protection issue. Not even close.

 

[skoalvikings]

Yes!!! All you fans who like to enjoy a beer (or two) at Gopher football games should call or write your state legislator and let them know that you want your rights protected at Gopher Stadium, and that you will be watching how they vote on this issue. There is no need for Gopher fans who cannot afford premium seats to roll over and take it up the rear end just because the Big 10 or NCAA frowns on it. Gopher Stadium is being built with public funds and this is an equal protection issue. If the legislature doesn't cooperate with us, maybe a class action lawsuit will get their attention.

Yes, let's focus on the important issues of the day. The legislature needs to stop fretting about $4 billion in deficits and give me the right to spend $6 on a beer!!!

 

[gopherguy05]

Yes!!! All you fans who like to enjoy a beer (or two) at Gopher football games should call or write your state legislator and let them know that you want your rights protected at Gopher Stadium, and that you will be watching how they vote on this issue. There is no need for Gopher fans who cannot afford premium seats to roll over and take it up the rear end just because the Big 10 or NCAA frowns on it. Gopher Stadium is being built with public funds and this is an equal protection issue. If the legislature doesn't cooperate with us, maybe a class action lawsuit will get their attention.

You made this argument before and got the same reply.

YOU. ARE. A. TOOL.

 

[Maximus]

Yes!!! All you fans who like to enjoy a beer (or two) at Gopher football games should call or write your state legislator and let them know that you want your rights protected at Gopher Stadium, and that you will be watching how they vote on this issue. There is no need for Gopher fans who cannot afford premium seats to roll over and take it up the rear end just because the Big 10 or NCAA frowns on it. Gopher Stadium is being built with public funds and this is an equal protection issue. If the legislature doesn't cooperate with us, maybe a class action lawsuit will get their attention.

You do understand that this bill does not FORCE the U to sell beer throughout the stadium. They will not sell beer anywhere if this passes. You will never, ever, ever, ever be able to buy a beer in the general seating areas. Never, ever, ever.

As my previous post states (pending confirmation), I believe this will be good for the premium seat holders 'cuz they'll get the booze for free now.

 

[alltimetwinsfan]

You do understand that this bill does not FORCE the U to sell beer throughout the stadium. They will not sell beer anywhere if this passes. You will never, ever, ever, ever be able to buy a beer in the general seating areas. Never, ever, ever.

As my previous post states (pending confirmation), I believe this will be good for the premium seat holders 'cuz they'll get the booze for free now.

Indeed...congratulations to those who made a ruckus, as those who are entitled will now be more entitled than ever. If that was your ultimate goal, nice job. However, nothing will change for the rest of us, just as 99% of the collective knew from the start, and just as 80% of us completely expected...thus, no surprises, no arguments...

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Quote: "Drinking beer is not a right and this is not an equal protection issue."

In your world this might be true. In my world Prohibition was a complete failure, and adults are allowed to drink beer within the legal limits even if it is in the presence of college students under the age of 21.

 

[BrianW]

Quote: "Drinking beer is not a right and this is not an equal protection issue."

In your world this might be true. In my world Prohibition was a complete failure, and adults are allowed to drink beer within the legal limits even if it is in the presence of college students under the age of 21.

Good grief. In the world that we all live in, institutions are allowed to make their own rules about what they serve to whom. If a restaurant sells alcohol in its bar area but not in the restaurant part will you be taking this to the Supreme Court? If some concessionaires at the State Fair sell beer and some don't, is this a matter for the Legislature? Give me a break.

Please keep in mind the following:
1. This is not an equal protection issue. If I buy a club seat and you don't, I am entitled to sit in that seat and you are not. Will you be suing to enforce your 14th-amendment rights to equal protection of seat distribution?
2. There is no reason why the policy at TCFBS should be any different than the policy at Williams or Mariucci.
3. People whose only reason for attending games is the ability to legally drink alcohol in public are not welcome in our stadium.

 

[harrys ghost]

Quote: "Drinking beer is not a right and this is not an equal protection issue."

In your world this might be true. In my world Prohibition was a complete failure, and adults are allowed to drink beer within the legal limits even if it is in the presence of college students under the age of 21.

Do you look through the large end of a telescope as well?

The repeal of prohibition made the sale of alcohol legal not mandatory.

 

[Sour1729]

Drinking beer is not a right and this is not an equal protection issue. Not even close.

Not to be that guy, but you could probably apply the right to drink beer under liberty in the 14th Amendment (substantive due process). "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

 

[Goldmember]

Quote: "Drinking beer is not a right and this is not an equal protection issue."

In your world this might be true. In my world Prohibition was a complete failure, and adults are allowed to drink beer within the legal limits even if it is in the presence of college students under the age of 21.

People who are 18-20 are every bit as much an adult as you are.

But what's most bewildering about your posts is that you seem to claim that the U should re-invent the wheel here. This is the policy at virtually every major college athletic venue in the United States.

Explain to me why our great insitution should be penalized simply becuase out state legislature wants to pander to drunks or idiots (who don't understand that this is the way it's done everywhere)?

Our state legislature is being very foolish and destructive (which is typical for them). I'm sure they haven't even bothered to investigate what they are asking the U to do. For instance, do they know what the likely effect would be? Do they know even how the NCAA and Big Ten would react? Of course they don't. They are blindly panering without understanding the issue.

 

[Ski U Mah 55]

I have already written my representatives urging them not to touch any legislation that has to do with selling alcohol at the stadium. With all the problems in the state/country why are we dealing with such petty garbage?

 

[GoAUpher]

Good grief. In the world that we all live in, institutions are allowed to make their own rules about what they serve to whom. If a restaurant sells alcohol in its bar area but not in the restaurant part will you be taking this to the Supreme Court? If some concessionaires at the State Fair sell beer and some don't, is this a matter for the Legislature? Give me a break.

Please keep in mind the following:
1. This is not an equal protection issue. If I buy a club seat and you don't, I am entitled to sit in that seat and you are not. Will you be suing to enforce your 14th-amendment rights to equal protection of seat distribution?
2. There is no reason why the policy at TCFBS should be any different than the policy at Williams or Mariucci.
3. People whose only reason for attending games is the ability to legally drink alcohol in public are not welcome in our stadium.

Exactly. I almost put something similar to this at the end of my post, but I figured it was more than a little obvious that while alcohol is legal there is nothing forcing the U to serve it.

Also, if the passage of this legislation results in the premium seat holders getting their alcohol for free then the bill is a complete failure for other reasons. Not only would it have failed at its primary purpose (getting alcohol to the masses at TCF) but it will have removed a source of additional revenue from the U.

 

[GoAUpher]

Not to be that guy, but you could probably apply the right to drink beer under liberty in the 14th Amendment (substantive due process). "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Don't think so. There is no due process problem here. You aren't being deprived anything that you possess/own/control. Purchase of tickets and attendance at Gopher games is voluntary. You do so knowing the benefits and limitations of the purchase/attendance. Don't like it? Don't go. No one is forcing you buy tickets and attend games without beer. Would it be a 14th amendment issue if your favorite restaurant no longer served alcohol per a management decision?

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Quote: "Also, if the passage of this legislation results in the premium seat holders getting their alcohol for free then the bill is a complete failure for other reasons. Not only would it have failed at its primary purpose (getting alcohol to the masses at TCF) but it will have removed a source of additional revenue from the U."

You will be right if that is what happens. But that kind of arrogance will be an additional reason why many state legislators don't like the University Administration and like to stick it to the U every once in awhile just to put them in their place.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Brian W Quote: "Please keep in mind the following:
1. This is not an equal protection issue. If I buy a club seat and you don't, I am entitled to sit in that seat and you are not. Will you be suing to enforce your 14th-amendment rights to equal protection of seat distribution?
2. There is no reason why the policy at TCFBS should be any different than the policy at Williams or Mariucci.
3. People whose only reason for attending games is the ability to legally drink alcohol in public are not welcome in our stadium."

My Responses:

1. Agreed. I already knew that.

2. I couldn't care less what the policy at Williams and Mariucci has been. I don't agree with it and I think it should be changed.

3. Go f*ck youself. I probably have been a Gopher fan and supporter since before your born. That includes attending games at Memorial Stadium. Just because I think that all Gopher fans should be treated equally in a taxpayer funded stadium doesn't mean I am an alcoholic or that I shouldn't be welcome at Gopher games.

 

[GoAUpher]

Quote: "Also, if the passage of this legislation results in the premium seat holders getting their alcohol for free then the bill is a complete failure for other reasons. Not only would it have failed at its primary purpose (getting alcohol to the masses at TCF) but it will have removed a source of additional revenue from the U."

You will be right if that is what happens. But that kind of arrogance will be an additional reason why many state legislators don't like the University Administration and like to stick it to the U every once in awhile just to put them in their place.

I'm sorry, but I don't see where you get arrogance from establishing a policy that is recognized as responsible by almost every other NCAA institution. Nor do I see where you get arrogance from the potential decision to give beer to premium seat holders for free (assuming that the passage of this legislation makes that the only way to serve these folks beer at TCF)...they would simply be responding to the situation forced upon them by the legislature.

If anything, I find your presumption that you have a right to drink at games and that your view should be adopted by any means necessary (including pointless legislation) to be more arrogant. I'm not saying I have a problem with drinking at sporting events...I'd be a hypocrite if I did since I drink at games now and would continue to do so if I could. But I also recognize and respect the U's legitimate right to control how alcohol is distributed at their venues...something that you seem to be unwilling to do.

 

[GoAUpher]

Brian W Quote: "Please keep in mind the following:
1. This is not an equal protection issue. If I buy a club seat and you don't, I am entitled to sit in that seat and you are not. Will you be suing to enforce your 14th-amendment rights to equal protection of seat distribution?
2. There is no reason why the policy at TCFBS should be any different than the policy at Williams or Mariucci.
3. People whose only reason for attending games is the ability to legally drink alcohol in public are not welcome in our stadium."

My Responses:

1. Agreed. I already knew that.

2. I couldn't care less what the policy at Williams and Mariucci has been. I don't agree with it and I think it should be changed.

3. Go f*ck youself. I probably have been a Gopher fan and supporter since before your born. That includes attending games at Memorial Stadium. Just because I think that all Gopher fans should be treated equally in a taxpayer funded stadium doesn't mean I am an alcoholic or that I shouldn't be welcome at Gopher games.

1. Why make the false and baseless claim then? You've just admitted that you have no basis (other than frustration/disappointment) to get so worked up or demand "justice", yet you pretend that we're all supposed to believe that you're some kind of victim.

2. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I honeslty don't care...Except for the fact that you've tried to pretend that this is some gross miscarriage of justice. You're so far gone on this that you are actively supporting legislation that is (as you admit) pointless and counterproductive and which will take away money that the U could use to pay down its stadium debt or put towards improving our sports teams. Way to support the Gophers!

3. Anyone who wants to spend money on season tickets to spend more money on beer resulting in more money for the U is welcome to do so...Unless they're a Badger/Hawkeye fan of course!

 

[gophersfan]

Isn't it againist NCAA Rules to sell beer at a college football stadium anyway. what is the rule on that.

 

[GoAUpher]

Isn't it againist NCAA Rules to sell beer at a college football stadium anyway. what is the rule on that.

I'm pretty sure its a recommendation rather than a requirement.

 

[gopheraschells]

i think they should allow alcohol to be served to 21+ for the simple reason that restricting it proliferates what it is designed to control (binge drinking by college students) so all of the adults in the regular seats dont get to drink, and the kids who would be binge drinking are taking straight shots of tequila out of water bottles instead of drinking beer which last time i checked doesnt have the same amount of alcohol.

 

[Sour1729]

Don't think so. There is no due process problem here. You aren't being deprived anything that you possess/own/control. Purchase of tickets and attendance at Gopher games is voluntary. You do so knowing the benefits and limitations of the purchase/attendance. Don't like it? Don't go. No one is forcing you buy tickets and attend games without beer. Would it be a 14th amendment issue if your favorite restaurant no longer served alcohol per a management decision?

No, it would not be a 14th amendment issue if your favorite restaurant no longer served alcohol per a management decision because "my favorite restaurant" and what I can assume to be the overwhelming majority of restaurants are not owned by the State.

When the federal government deprives a citizen of liberty, it will be addressed via the 5th amendment. When a state government deprives a citizen of liberty, it will be addressed via the 14th Amendment.

Private establishments have nothing to do with it. The University, as a state entity, owns the stadium. That is how it falls under the 14th Amendment.

Also, I'm not sure how your statement "being deprived of anything you possess/own/control" works in your argument. What does that have to do with the state depriving liberty?

Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Loving v. Virginia were all substantive due process cases, sometimes with a little equal protection thrown in. The court will generally look to see if the right at issue can be considered "fundamental" or deeply rooted in history and tradition. If not, a rational basis test is used, and there is not strict scrutiny like there would be for a fundamental right.

It would be tough to argue that drinking beer is a "fundamental right" because it was prohibited for a decade in the 1930s. The history aspect would be tough to overcome. Moving to the rational basis test, it would be tough to beat because I think the state would be able to prove some sort of rational benefit to society for not allowing alcohol sales. That is a little more shaky though, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Look, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here because frankly I don't care either way. This helps me though because my Constitutional Law final is on Monday.

 

[harrys ghost]

No, it would not be a 14th amendment issue if your favorite restaurant no longer served alcohol per a management decision because "my favorite restaurant" and what I can assume to be the overwhelming majority of restaurants are not owned by the State.

When the federal government deprives a citizen of liberty, it will be addressed via the 5th amendment. When a state government deprives a citizen of liberty, it will be addressed via the 14th Amendment.

Private establishments have nothing to do with it. The University, as a state entity, owns the stadium. That is how it falls under the 14th Amendment.

Also, I'm not sure how your statement "being deprived of anything you possess/own/control" works in your argument. What does that have to do with the state depriving liberty?

Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Loving v. Virginia were all substantive due process cases, sometimes with a little equal protection thrown in. The court will generally look to see if the right at issue can be considered "fundamental" or deeply rooted in history and tradition. If not, a rational basis test is used, and there is not strict scrutiny like there would be for a fundamental right.

It would be tough to argue that drinking beer is a "fundamental right" because it was prohibited for a decade in the 1930s. The history aspect would be tough to overcome. Moving to the rational basis test, it would be tough to beat because I think the state would be able to prove some sort of rational benefit to society for not allowing alcohol sales. That is a little more shaky though, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Look, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here because frankly I don't care either way. This helps me though because my Constitutional Law final is on Monday.

I believe the U predates the state by several years and, if I am not mistaken, it is technically a separate entity.

 

[GopherRock]

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.

 

[FarmGopher]

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.

 

[GoAUpher]

No, it would not be a 14th amendment issue if your favorite restaurant no longer served alcohol per a management decision because "my favorite restaurant" and what I can assume to be the overwhelming majority of restaurants are not owned by the State.

When the federal government deprives a citizen of liberty, it will be addressed via the 5th amendment. When a state government deprives a citizen of liberty, it will be addressed via the 14th Amendment.

Private establishments have nothing to do with it. The University, as a state entity, owns the stadium. That is how it falls under the 14th Amendment.

Also, I'm not sure how your statement "being deprived of anything you possess/own/control" works in your argument. What does that have to do with the state depriving liberty?

Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Loving v. Virginia were all substantive due process cases, sometimes with a little equal protection thrown in. The court will generally look to see if the right at issue can be considered "fundamental" or deeply rooted in history and tradition. If not, a rational basis test is used, and there is not strict scrutiny like there would be for a fundamental right.

It would be tough to argue that drinking beer is a "fundamental right" because it was prohibited for a decade in the 1930s. The history aspect would be tough to overcome. Moving to the rational basis test, it would be tough to beat because I think the state would be able to prove some sort of rational benefit to society for not allowing alcohol sales. That is a little more shaky though, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Look, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here because frankly I don't care either way. This helps me though because my Constitutional Law final is on Monday.

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.