State Travel Bans Impact College Athletics

[IdaGriz01]

Skimmed this thread and moved on ... then had an intriguing thought.

During the debate about "cost of attendance" stipends for student athletes, school administrators stated pretty vehemently that the athletes were not "employees" of the college/university. They are therefore not "state employees."

Now, I do not know the exact wording on this stupid law, but it seems to me that, technically, the players could travel to a road game in the "forbidden" states, with their expenses paid by the host school. And, it just occurred to me, the band -- whose members are students and therefore not state employees -- could also go. (They'd need to run a bake sale to cover their expenses.) Trouble is, the coaches, training staff and band director (who are state employees) could not go along.

I know this is just playing with words, but I still find it pretty hilarious.
:lol:

Maybe the coaches, etc. could use their "vacation" days to just happen to show up at the away stadium. :?:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

Skimmed this thread and moved on ... then had an intriguing thought.

During the debate about "cost of attendance" stipends for student athletes, school administrators stated pretty vehemently that the athletes were not "employees" of the college/university. They are therefore not "state employees."

Now, I do not know the exact wording on this stupid law, but it seems to me that, technically, the players could travel to a road game in the "forbidden" states, with their expenses paid by the host school. And, it just occurred to me, the band -- whose members are students and therefore not state employees -- could also go. (They'd need to run a bake sale to cover their expenses.) Trouble is, the coaches, training staff and band director (who are state employees) could not go along.

I know this is just playing with words, but I still find it pretty hilarious.
:lol:

Maybe the coaches, etc. could use their "vacation" days to just happen to show up at the away stadium. :?:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Interesting question. The articles are often not complete. The law also says this: "Approvearequestforstate-fundedorstate-sponsoredtraveltoastate that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of voiding or repealing, existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, or has enacted a law that authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, including any law that creates an exemption to antidiscrimination laws in order to permit discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."

So, no funding for the travel, not just applicable to employees.

Idaho, also wanted to say that I enjoyed the FCS strength discussion in the other thread, and all of your research and stats was appreciated. Very interesting. I learned some things, and the stats did help complete aspects of the big picture. Thx.

 

[SoldierGriz]

California is such a shithole of a state..

Ok, then how would you describe the states that have passed discriminatory legislation?

Specific legislation aside - the state are described as sovereign. It's a simple, yet increasingly fading founding principle.

I thought we resolved that one back in 1865.

The Supreme Court has recently stated that the Constitution "preserves the sovereign status of the States" by "reserv[ing] to them a substantial portion of the Nation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status."16 The idea of"dual sovereignty"17-that whatever they may have ceded, the states retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty."

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=facpubs

I'll give you it is not as clear as a Montana blue-ribbon trout stream...but states do enjoy some level of sovereignty.

 

[Ursa Major]

Ok, then how would you describe the states that have passed discriminatory legislation?

Specific legislation aside - the state are described as sovereign. It's a simple, yet increasingly fading founding principle.

I thought we resolved that one back in 1865.

The Supreme Court has recently stated that the Constitution "preserves the sovereign status of the States" by "reserv[ing] to them a substantial portion of the Nation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status."16 The idea of"dual sovereignty"17-that whatever they may have ceded, the states retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty."

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=facpubs

I'll give you it is not as clear as a Montana blue-ribbon trout stream...but states do enjoy some level of sovereignty.

Soldier,

Don't mind me, I was just being a smart ass. Perhaps our country's oldest debate along with the Whiskey Tax.

 

[EverettGriz]

California is such a shithole of a state..

Ok, then how would you describe the states that have passed discriminatory legislation?

Specific legislation aside - the state are described as sovereign. It's a simple, yet increasingly fading founding principle.

I thought we resolved that one back in 1865.

:lol: :clap:

 

[SoldierGriz]

Specific legislation aside - the state are described as sovereign. It's a simple, yet increasingly fading founding principle.

I thought we resolved that one back in 1865.

The Supreme Court has recently stated that the Constitution "preserves the sovereign status of the States" by "reserv[ing] to them a substantial portion of the Nation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status."16 The idea of"dual sovereignty"17-that whatever they may have ceded, the states retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty."

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=facpubs

I'll give you it is not as clear as a Montana blue-ribbon trout stream...but states do enjoy some level of sovereignty.

Soldier,

Don't mind me, I was just being a smart ass. Perhaps our country's oldest debate along with the Whiskey Tax.

Wait, what? There's a tax on whisky? We should have settled that one in 1865 as well. Greedy bastards.

 

[Grizfan-24]

I thought we resolved that one back in 1865.

The Supreme Court has recently stated that the Constitution "preserves the sovereign status of the States" by "reserv[ing] to them a substantial portion of the Nation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status."16 The idea of"dual sovereignty"17-that whatever they may have ceded, the states retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty."

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=facpubs

I'll give you it is not as clear as a Montana blue-ribbon trout stream...but states do enjoy some level of sovereignty.

Soldier,

Don't mind me, I was just being a smart ass. Perhaps our country's oldest debate along with the Whiskey Tax.

Wait, what? There's a tax on whisky? We should have settled that one in 1865 as well. Greedy bastards.

Whiskey rebellion. Used as a tool for GW to assert authority over the states just after the ratification of the Constitution. Wheat farmers got screwed by the cost of shipping in western PA In the 1790's. As a result they converted that prized wheat into the blissful elixir that is whiskey. Government placed a huge excise tax on that whiskey and as a result the farmers got a wee bit angry.

They modeled their revolt after Shays a decade earlier. The leaders are of the the Whiskey Rebellion were sentenced to death for treason after being put down by a rather large federal force and then pardoned by Washington before the sentence was executed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[horribilisfan8184]

California is such a shithole of a state..

Ok, then how would you describe the states that have passed discriminatory legislation?

PC immune?

 

[SoldierGriz]

The Supreme Court has recently stated that the Constitution "preserves the sovereign status of the States" by "reserv[ing] to them a substantial portion of the Nation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status."16 The idea of"dual sovereignty"17-that whatever they may have ceded, the states retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty."

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=facpubs

I'll give you it is not as clear as a Montana blue-ribbon trout stream...but states do enjoy some level of sovereignty.

Soldier,

Don't mind me, I was just being a smart ass. Perhaps our country's oldest debate along with the Whiskey Tax.

Wait, what? There's a tax on whisky? We should have settled that one in 1865 as well. Greedy bastards.

Whiskey rebellion. Used as a tool for GW to assert authority over the states just after the ratification of the Constitution. Wheat farmers got screwed by the cost of shipping in western PA In the 1790's. As a result they converted that prized wheat into the blissful elixir that is whiskey. Government placed a huge excise tax on that whiskey and as a result the farmers got a wee bit angry.

They modeled their revolt after Shays a decade earlier. The leaders are of the the Whiskey Rebellion were sentenced to death for treason after being put down by a rather large federal force and then pardoned by Washington before the sentence was executed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Washington's experience trying to cobble together a Federal Army out of State Militias...his frustration probably carried over into this type of stuff...

Anyway, maybe we should all just ban Cali...they don't have good whiskey anyway.

 

[Grizfan-24]

Soldier,

Don't mind me, I was just being a smart ass. Perhaps our country's oldest debate along with the Whiskey Tax.

Wait, what? There's a tax on whisky? We should have settled that one in 1865 as well. Greedy bastards.

Whiskey rebellion. Used as a tool for GW to assert authority over the states just after the ratification of the Constitution. Wheat farmers got screwed by the cost of shipping in western PA In the 1790's. As a result they converted that prized wheat into the blissful elixir that is whiskey. Government placed a huge excise tax on that whiskey and as a result the farmers got a wee bit angry.

They modeled their revolt after Shays a decade earlier. The leaders are of the the Whiskey Rebellion were sentenced to death for treason after being put down by a rather large federal force and then pardoned by Washington before the sentence was executed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Washington's experience trying to cobble together a Federal Army out of State Militias...his frustration probably carried over into this type of stuff...

Anyway, maybe we should all just ban Cali...they don't have good whiskey anyway.

Living currently in California, who is better than any other state at giving the middle finger to the federal government, I find the narrative slightly amusing when Places like Texas and their libertarian bent complain about a state who does have the clout to say no.

George Washington was far more successful in putting down the Whiskey than the Articles government with shays because they actually had the authority to deploy a military w/out the states approval. Oh and they had money to pay soldiers to fight, which helped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stop_HammerTime69]

Wait, what? There's a tax on whisky? We should have settled that one in 1865 as well. Greedy bastards.

Whiskey rebellion. Used as a tool for GW to assert authority over the states just after the ratification of the Constitution. Wheat farmers got screwed by the cost of shipping in western PA In the 1790's. As a result they converted that prized wheat into the blissful elixir that is whiskey. Government placed a huge excise tax on that whiskey and as a result the farmers got a wee bit angry.

They modeled their revolt after Shays a decade earlier. The leaders are of the the Whiskey Rebellion were sentenced to death for treason after being put down by a rather large federal force and then pardoned by Washington before the sentence was executed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Washington's experience trying to cobble together a Federal Army out of State Militias...his frustration probably carried over into this type of stuff...

Anyway, maybe we should all just ban Cali...they don't have good whiskey anyway.

Living currently in California, who is better than any other state at giving the middle finger to the federal government, I find the narrative slightly amusing when Places like Texas and their libertarian bent complain about a state who does have the clout to say no.

George Washington was far more successful in putting down the Whiskey than the Articles government with shays because they actually had the authority to deploy a military w/out the states approval. Oh and they had money to pay soldiers to fight, which helped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OH BOY!! Are we gonna talk about history and governmental philosophies on a Montana football forum?

 

[Grizfan-24]

I mean what else is a person to talk about in a Grizzly football forum?

Not football. There isn't much to discuss really. Pretty low expectations for a moribund program with little fan following to speak of. Pretty lucky if a thread reaches say 3 pages, let alone 16.

 

[Ursa Major]

I mean what else is a person to talk about in a Grizzly football forum?

Not football. There isn't much to discuss really. Pretty low expectations for a moribund program with little fan following to speak of. Pretty lucky if a thread reaches say 3 pages, let alone 16.

Wasn't it Jedidiah Stitt and his Kentucky Green Hat Boys that started the Whiskey Rebellion?? I found an article from the Providence Gazette:

Stitt said:
It was all my fault. I failed to lead the boys effectively. I'm going to spend the Winter of 1793 and do some soul searching on what I can do better at.

The arrogance. It was always about "him".

 

[EverettGriz]

I mean what else is a person to talk about in a Grizzly football forum?

Not football. There isn't much to discuss really. Pretty low expectations for a moribund program with little fan following to speak of. Pretty lucky if a thread reaches say 3 pages, let alone 16.

Wasn't it Jedidiah Stitt and his Kentucky Green Hat Boys that started the Whiskey Rebellion?? I found an article from the Providence Gazette:

Stitt said:
It was all my fault. I failed to lead the boys effectively. I'm going to spend the Winter of 1793 and do some soul searching on what I can do better at.

The arrogance. It was always about "him".

:clap:

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I mean what else is a person to talk about in a Grizzly football forum?

Not football. There isn't much to discuss really. Pretty low expectations for a moribund program with little fan following to speak of. Pretty lucky if a thread reaches say 3 pages, let alone 16.

Wasn't it Jedidiah Stitt and his Kentucky Green Hat Boys that started the Whiskey Rebellion?? I found an article from the Providence Gazette:

Stitt said:
It was all my fault. I failed to lead the boys effectively. I'm going to spend the Winter of 1793 and do some soul searching on what I can do better at.

The arrogance. It was always about "him".

LOL

 

[jodcon]

I mean what else is a person to talk about in a Grizzly football forum?

Not football. There isn't much to discuss really. Pretty low expectations for a moribund program with little fan following to speak of. Pretty lucky if a thread reaches say 3 pages, let alone 16.

Wasn't it Jedidiah Stitt and his Kentucky Green Hat Boys that started the Whiskey Rebellion?? I found an article from the Providence Gazette:

Stitt said:
It was all my fault. I failed to lead the boys effectively. I'm going to spend the Winter of 1793 and do some soul searching on what I can do better at.

The arrogance. It was always about "him".

Well I'm not saying it was or wasn't ol' Jed but...

 

[jodcon]

Rumor has it Jed's boy Zeke was prominent during the Alaska Gold Rush also, got beat to a rich strike by One-Leg Choate by a matter of hours. Zeke was heard to say later "I can't believe that fucker beat us there, we had a 2 day head start and got beat by a guy with a broomstick leg and a blind jackass".

It is said the episode sent him into a death spiral.

 

[Ursa Major]

You're leaving out arguably the most famous Stitt, Confederate Colonel Bedford Stanton Beauregard Stitt III of the Mississippi 30th Dragoons. He was noted as being the first Confederate commander to lose an engagement in Colorado. Later in the war, half of his brigade mutinied during the second half of a battle. He was lovingly called ol' snapping turtle by his men but most of them compared him unfavorably to Bobby Lee.

 

[jodcon]

You're leaving out arguably the most famous Stitt, Confederate Colonel Bedford Stanton Beauregard Stitt III of the Mississippi 30th Dragoons. He was noted as being the first Confederate commander to lose an engagement in Colorado. Later in the war, half of his brigade mutinied during the second half of a battle. He was loving called ol' snapping turtle by his men but most of them compared him unfavorably to Bobby Lee.

The top 5 dumbest posters here will undoubtedly ask "Why was a Confederate Colonel engaging in Colorado?"

It was all a part of Stitts innovative new offensive strategy to quickly take the battle to the enemy before they had a chance to react, often sacrificing strategic positioning for an extra offensive attack.

Sadly it was not successful this time.

 

[Ursa Major]

You're leaving out arguably the most famous Stitt, Confederate Colonel Bedford Stanton Beauregard Stitt III of the Mississippi 30th Dragoons. He was noted as being the first Confederate commander to lose an engagement in Colorado. Later in the war, half of his brigade mutinied during the second half of a battle. He was loving called ol' snapping turtle by his men but most of them compared him unfavorably to Bobby Lee.

The top 5 dumbest posters here will undoubtedly ask "Why was a Confederate Colonel engaging in Colorado?"

It was all a part of Stitts innovative new offensive strategy to quickly take the battle to the enemy before they had a chance to react, often sacrificing strategic positioning for an extra offensive attack.

Sadly it was not successful this time.

This is well stated Jodcon! Even as the 6th dumest poster on this board I truly understand what you're saying.

I found a Stitt quote from 1863 from the Vicksberg Courier

Colonel Bedford Stanton Beauregard Stitt III:

A lot of people want to blame our commanders for the lose in Colorado. Our soldiers lost their fighting spirit that day. I will tell you straight, defilade is for cowards, sir. No army of mine will be on the defensive. It's attack those blue bellies. Then attack some more.