DOCSLIB.ORG

Admission of South Dakota Into the Union and for the Organization of Territory of North Dakota

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Admission of South Dakota Into the Union and for the Organization of Territory of North Dakota University of Oklahoma College of Law University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 2-24-1888 Admission of South Dakota into the Union and for the organization of Territory of North Dakota Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/indianserialset Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation H.R. Rep. No. 709, 50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888) This House Report is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 by an authorized administrator of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 50TH CoNGR:kss, } RvUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. REPOR'11 1st Session. { No. IH9. ADMISSION OF SOUTH DAKOTA INTO THE UNION AND FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF TERRirORY OF NORTH DAKOTA. FEBRUARY 24, 1888.-Commttted to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. SPRINGER, from the Committee on the Territories, submitted the following ADVERSE RiiPORT: [To accompany bill H. R. 1679.] The Committee on the Territories, to 'Whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1679) to provide for the admission of Smtth Dakota into the Union and for the orr1anization of the Terr·itory of North Dakota, having had the same under consideration, respectfully submit the following report: A Senate bill containing substantially the same provisions was re­ ferred to the Committee on the ·rerritories of the House of Representa­ tives during the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress. After a care­ ful con~ideration of the provisions of that bill, the committee were of the opinion that it· ought not to pass, and on the 25th day of May, 1886, the following report thereon was submitterl to the House : The Committee on the Territm·ies, to whom 1vas referred the bill (S. 967) providing for the £tdntission of the State of Dakota into the Union, and for the OI'{Janization of the 1'er1·i­ tory of Liucoln, having had the same under consideration, 1'e~tpectjully sub111tit the follow­ ing 1·epo1't : The admission of Dakota, or a portion of Dakota, into the Union as a State has been a subject much discussed in Congress and by the people of that Territory. The report of the Senate Committee on the Territories at this session, accompanying Senate bill No. 967, contains much valuable information as to the resources of Da­ kota, and also gives a history of the various steps taken in Cougr~ss and by th!3 peo­ ple of Dakota, with a view to their admission. It is not necessary to recapitulate the matter contained in the Senate report. That report and the bill favor the admis­ sion of what is known as the southern half of the Territory of Dakota, and the or­ ganization of a Territorial government for the northern half. The dividing line is on the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude. From the data containe<l in that report it appears that the population of Dakota, according to the census taken in the Terri­ tory in 1885, wa<> 415,6G4; and, as divided by the proposed new State on the forty­ sixth p;11allel, there were in North Dakota 152,199 inhabitants, and in Sout.h Dakota. 263,46f>. The area of the Territory of Dakota as constituted is 149,100 square miles, and the area of the portion south of the forty-sixth parallel is estimated at 77,000 square miles. The history of the movement for t,he organization of a new State is set forth in the Senate report already referred to. It seems that the Territorial 113gislature passed au act on the 9th of March, 1885, providing for the calling of a constitutional convention for tbe purpose of framing a const,itution and State government for that part of the Territory lying south of tbe forty-sixth parallel and performing all other things es­ sential to the preparation of the Territory for making application to the General Government for the admission of such part of Dakota into the Union. 'fhe election 2 ADMISSION OF DAKO'l'A. waR held as provided, and bhe convention assem Lled at Sioux Falls on the 8th o£ Sep­ tember, 1885. The constitution was framed and submitted to a vote of the people of that part of the Territory on the first Monday in November, 1885, the vote resulting as follows: For the constitution, 25,226; against, 6,565; showing a total vote of :n,791. There was a soparate vote on the constitutional provision prohibiting the manufact­ ure ami !:!ale of intoxicating liquors in the State of Dakota, which resulted as follows: For the prohi Litory amendment, 15,570; against, 15,:337; being a majority of 233 in favor thorcof. Another constitutional provision was voted upon scparatel,y, namely, the provision providing for minority representation in the election of memuers of the house of rep­ resentatives of the State legislature. This provision received 11,273 votes; and there W13re 16,7 65 against it. At the last general election in Dakota, November, 1884, Mr. Gifford, Republican can­ didate for Delegate in Congress, received in the whole Territory 71,579 votes; and Mr. Wilson, the Democratic candidate, received 15,124 votes; and 61 votes were cast for other candidates, making a total vote in the Territory at that time of86,7("i4. As the total population in 181:15 was 415,664, the number of votes in 1884 to each in­ habitant would be 4.77 inhabitants to each voter. As there were 263,465 inhabitants in that part of Dakota which is organized by the Senate bill into the State of Dakota, upon the same ratio there would be 57,330 Yoters in the proposed State of Dakota; but of these, however, only 31,791 electors voted on the question of adopting the con­ st.itutiou, and of these but 25,226 voted in favor of the constitution, showing that a~.104 electors in the proposed State of Dakota either voted against the constitution or did not vote at all. It a.ll:io appears that 15,570 electors voted for adopting the constitut.ional provision prohibitiug the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in the proposed State, which shows that 41,f>60 electors in the proposed State either voted against that im­ portant provision, or were absent and not voting. It must be remembered, however, that the census of L885 was taken one year after the vote on election of Delegate in Cong1·ess in 1884, and that there had been a large increase in population during that year. It is safe to estimate that there were four mhabitants to each voter, according to thecemms of 1883. This would show a voting population in the proposed Stat., of Dakota of 65,866 on November :3, 1885, when the consti t,ution was submitted to a popular vote. Tho constitution, having received only ~5,2:l6 votes, there were at least :38,64'2 electors who either voted against the proposed constitution or absented themselves from the polls. The absence of so large anum­ ber of elActors can not be accounted for other than upon the supposition that the electors were indifferent to the result, or took no interest in the subject. It appears that the Democratic Territorial committee published an adtlress to t.he Democratic voters and people of Dakota, dated October 15, 1885, in which sai(l committee declined to call a Democratic convention for the nomiuation of officers for the proposed State, and recommended that the Democrats of Dakota, and aU law-abiding citizens gener­ ally, should decline to take any pa.rt whatevel' in the proposed election and proceed­ ings looking to the formation of a State gov rnment for the southern half of the Terri­ tory. It may be safe to infer, therefore, that the great mass of the Democratic voters in that part of the Territory declined to participate in the election, and the result shows that a large number of Republicans also purposely declined to vote or were indifferent as to the result. The most extraordinary efforts were used on the part of the friends of the new State movement to secure a large vote upon the question of ratifying the constitution. A fnll set of State officers was elected, and at the same time there were elected two Representatives in Congress, three justices of the supreme court, circuit judges for the several circuits in the proposed State, senators and representatives in the Stato )po·islature, and five places were voted upon as competing points for tho location of th~ State capitol. The separate propositions in the constitution on prohibition and mmority representation were also calculated, especially the former, to draw out a large vote; but, notwithstanding, all of these <]_uestions and the most strenuons efforts on the part of the friends of the new State mo\·ement to secure a large vote, the result shows that but 25,000 out of 6:l,OOO electors in that part of the Territory came to the polls a.nd voted for the proposed State constitution. But there were S6,000 electors in the whole Territory in Novemb(']', 1884, over 100,000 electors in the whole Territory in November, 1885, and of the 100,000 electors in the whole Territory bnt 25,000 have indicate<l a desire for the admission of the southtlrn half of Dakota into the Union as a separate State.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 234] of MINNESOTA for 1961 399 Nually Thereafter Such Mayor Shall
    234] OF MINNESOTA FOR 1961 399 nually thereafter such mayor shall appoint for the term of three years and until their successors qualify a sufficient num- ber of directors to fill the places of those whose term or terms expire. All terms shall end with the fiscal year. Approved April 10,1961. CHAPTER 236—S. F. No. 330 [Not Coded] An act relating to the cession by the state of Minnesota to the state of North Dakota of certain parcels of real prop- erty located in Clay county, Minnesota. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota: Section 1. Finding. By reason of flood control work upon the Red River of the north an avulsion has occurred leaving two parcels of land described as: (1) That portion of Government Lot 2 in the north- east quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 29, Township 140 North, Range 48 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Clay County, Minnesota, bounded by the thread of the Red River of the North as it existed prior to January 1, 1959, and the new thread of the Red River of the North as established by the United States Army Corps of En- gineers under Project CIVENG-21-018-59-22, containing 9.78 acres more or less; and (2) That portion of Government Lot 2 in the north- east quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 7, Township 139.North, Range 48 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Clay County, Minnesota, bounded by the thread of the Red River of the North as it existed prior to January 1, 1959, and the new thread of the Red River of the North as established by the United States Army Corps of En- gineers under Project CIVENG-21-018-59-22, containing 12.76 acres more or less, physically detached from the state of Minnesota and at- tached to the state of North Dakota.
    [Show full text]
  • The Late Tertiary History of the Upper Little Missouri River, North Dakota
    University of North Dakota UND Scholarly Commons Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects 1956 The al te tertiary history of the upper Little iM ssouri River, North Dakota Charles K. Petter Jr. University of North Dakota Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/theses Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Petter, Charles K. Jr., "The al te tertiary history of the upper Little iM ssouri River, North Dakota" (1956). Theses and Dissertations. 231. https://commons.und.edu/theses/231 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LATE TERTIARY H!~TORY OF 'l'HE. UPP.7:B LITTLE MISSOURI RIVER, NORTH DAKOTA A Thesis Submitted to tba Faculty of' the G?"adue.te School of the University ot 1'1ortri Dakota by Charles K. Petter, Jr. II In Partial Fulf'1llment or the Requirements tor the Degree ot Master of Science .rune 1956 "l' I l i This t.:iesis sured. tted by Charles re. Petter, J.r-. 1.n partial lftllment of tb.e requirements '.for the Degree of .Master of gcJenee in tr:i.e ·;rnivarsity of llorth Dakot;a. is .hereby approved by the Committee under. whom l~he work h.a.s 1)EH!Hl done. -- i"", " *'\ ~1" Wf 303937 Illustrations ......... .,............................. iv Oeneral Statement.............................. l Ar..:l:nowlodgments .................................
    [Show full text]
  • U:\Judgehovland\Law Clerks\Civil\Motions to Dismiss\Wilkinson V. Sbtwpd.Wpd
    Case 4:08-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 118 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION Peak North Dakota, LLC, a Colorado ) limited liability company; Peak Energy ) Resources, LLC, a Delaware limited ) liability company, Jack Vaughn, Alex ) McLean, and Matt Gray, ) ORDER ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:08-cv-087 ) Wilbur Wilkinson, Standing Bear ) Traders, LLC, a North Dakota limited ) liability company, and the Three Affiliated ) Tribes, Fort Berthold District Court, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________________________________________ ) Wilbur Wilkinson, ) ) Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Standing Bear Traders, LLC, ) a North Dakota limited liability company, ) and Margarita Burciaga-Taylor and ) Richard Howell, individually and ) d/b/a Standing Bear Traders, LLC, ) ) Third-Party Defendants. ) Before the Court is Standing Bear Traders, LLC (SBT) and Margarita Burciaga-Taylor’s (Taylor) “Motion to Dismiss Wilkinson’s Third Party Complaint or, Alternatively, to Abstain from Exercising Jurisdiction Over Wilkinson’s Third Party Complaint” filed on January 15, 2010. See Docket No. 83. Third-Party Plaintiff Wilbur Wilkinson (Wilkinson) filed a response in opposition 1 Case 4:08-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 118 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 12 to the motion on March 10, 2010. See Docket No. 106. Taylor and SBT filed a reply brief on March 24, 2010. See Docket No. 108. Taylor and SBT filed a supplemental appendix on March 26, 2010. See Docket No. 111. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND Peak North Dakota, LLC (Peak North) is a limited liability company organized under Colorado law and authorized to do business as a foreign limited liability company in North Dakota.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate Over a Federal Bill of Rights, 1787-1792, 33 Santa Clara L
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 33 | Number 4 Article 3 1-1-1993 Restoring the Grand Security: The eD bate over a Federal Bill of Rights, 1787-1792 John P. Kaminski Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John P. Kaminski, Restoring the Grand Security: The Debate over a Federal Bill of Rights, 1787-1792, 33 Santa Clara L. Rev. 887 (1993). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol33/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESTORING THE GRAND SECURITY: THE DEBATE OVER A FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS, 1787-1792 John P. Kaminski From 1763 until 1791, Americans debated the nature of govern- ment and how best to preserve liberty.' Halfway through this de- bate, most Americans decided that their liberties could best be pre- served outside of the British Empire.2 In rebelling against the British government, Americans did not turn their backs on government in general. On the contrary, they fervently believed that government was essential in protecting the rights of individuals. This captivation with government found its way into the fundamental documents of the new states.3 The propriety, and indeed, necessity, of a bill of rights protect- ing individual freedoms and liberties was a much less clear-cut issue during this time.
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICAN MANHOOD in the CIVIL WAR ERA a Dissertation Submitted
    UNMADE: AMERICAN MANHOOD IN THE CIVIL WAR ERA A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Michael E. DeGruccio _________________________________ Gail Bederman, Director Graduate Program in History Notre Dame, Indiana July 2007 UNMADE: AMERICAN MANHOOD IN THE CIVIL WAR ERA Abstract by Michael E. DeGruccio This dissertation is ultimately a story about men trying to tell stories about themselves. The central character driving the narrative is a relatively obscure officer, George W. Cole, who gained modest fame in central New York for leading a regiment of black soldiers under the controversial General Benjamin Butler, and, later, for killing his attorney after returning home from the war. By weaving Cole into overlapping micro-narratives about violence between white officers and black troops, hidden war injuries, the personal struggles of fellow officers, the unbounded ambition of his highest commander, Benjamin Butler, and the melancholy life of his wife Mary Barto Cole, this dissertation fleshes out the essence of the emergent myth of self-made manhood and its relationship to the war era. It also provides connective tissue between the top-down war histories of generals and epic battles and the many social histories about the “common soldier” that have been written consciously to push the historiography away from military brass and Lincoln’s administration. Throughout this dissertation, mediating figures like Cole and those who surrounded him—all of lesser ranks like major, colonel, sergeant, or captain—hem together what has previously seemed like the disconnected experiences of the Union military leaders, and lowly privates in the field, especially African American troops.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 19-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______________________ JEFFREY ALAN OLSON, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent. _______________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania _______________________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI _______________________ DAVID T. LEAKE AMIR H. ALI Counsel of Record MEGHA RAM* LAW OFFICE OF DAVID T. RODERICK & SOLANGE LEAKE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 130 West Main Street 777 6th Street NW, 11th Fl. Somerset, Pennsylvania 15501 Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] (202) 869-3434 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner *Admitted only in California; not admitted in D.C. Practicing under the supervision of the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether this Court’s holding that states may not “impose criminal penalties on the refusal to submit to” a warrantless blood draw, Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2185 (2016), is substantive and there- fore applies retroactively. (i) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) Question Presented .............................................................. i Table of Authorities ............................................................ iii Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari ....................................... 1 Opinions Below .................................................................... 1 Jurisdiction .......................................................................... 1 Statutory And Constitutional Provisions Involved...........
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing the Red River of the North
    FISHING THE RED RIVER OF THE NORTH The Red River boasts more than 70 species of fish. Channel catfish in the Red River can attain weights of more than 30 pounds, walleye as big as 13 pounds, and northern pike can grow as long as 45 inches. Includes access maps, fishing tips, local tourism contacts and more. TABLE OF CONTENTS YOUR GUIDE TO FISHING THE RED RIVER OF THE NORTH 3 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 4 RIVER STEWARDSHIP 4 FISH OF THE RED RIVER 5 PUBLIC ACCESS MAP 6 PUBLIC ACCESS CHART 7 AREA MAPS 8 FISHING THE RED 9 TIP AND RAP 9 EATING FISH FROM THE RED RIVER 11 CATCH-AND-RELEASE 11 FISH RECIPES 11 LOCAL TOURISM CONTACTS 12 BE AWARE OF THE DANGERS OF DAMS 12 ©2017, State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources FAW-471-17 The Minnesota DNR prohibits discrimination in its programs and services based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, public assistance status, age, sexual orientation or disability. Persons with disabilities may request reasonable modifications to access or participate in DNR programs and services by contacting the DNR ADA Title II Coordinator at [email protected] or 651-259-5488. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4049; or Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C. Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. This brochure was produced by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife with technical assistance provided by the North Dakota Department of Game and Fish.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. House of Representatives Hearing Regarding the Admission
    TABLE OF CONTENTS House of Representatives Uashington, D. C. Subcommittee on Territorial February 23, 1960 and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. PAGE Statement of Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii............. ... ............ ....... ...... 4 Statement of J. Monroe Sullivan, Vice President, Pacific American Steamship Association. ......... 10 Statement of Honorable Hiram L. Fong, a United States Senator from the State of Hawaii ....... 17 Statement of Honorable Oren L. Long, a United States Senator from the State of Hawaii.......... 19 Statement of Wilbur K. Watkins, Jr., a Deputy Attorney General of the State of Hawaii ........ 22 Statement of Harold Seidman, Assistant Chief, Office of Management and Organization, Bureau of the Budget (Accompanied by HoWard Schnoor, Management Analyst, Bureau of the Budget, and Mrs. Ruth Van Cleve, Act'ng Assistant Solicitor, Department of the Interior..................... 25 Statement of John F. Donelan, Kahulul Railroad Company, Maui, Hawaii. .............. ......... 67 ,....2~ C i. .E~*L'. ' C" 'i TI'Cyll.-(~ * - . * J~h~i ~rr?~ '---- ~7ur~w--' ley- 1 ttle H. R. 10434, H. R. 10443, E. R. 10456, H. R. 10463, and H. R. 10475 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1960 House of Represontatives, Subcommittee on Terri.orial and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Xnterior and :'Pular Affairs, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:48 a. m., in the committee room, New House Office Building, Honorable Leo W. O'Brien, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Mr. O'Brien, The Subcommittee on Territorial and In- sular Affairs will be in order for hearing on the several bills to amend certain laws of the United States providing for admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union and for other purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Admission of Nebraska Into the Union
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions and Reports, Nebraska State Historical Society Nebraska State Historical Society 1885 Admission of Nebraska into the Union Charles Gere Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebhisttrans Part of the History Commons Gere, Charles, "Admission of Nebraska into the Union" (1885). Transactions and Reports, Nebraska State Historical Society. 26. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebhisttrans/26 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska State Historical Society at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions and Reports, Nebraska State Historical Society by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 162 NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY. ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA INTO THE UNION. ADDRESS OF HON. CHARLES H. GERE, January, 1880. To discuss the events of'1866 and 1867 at this time has seemed to me presumptuous. Barely a dozen years have elapsed since Nebraska turned the sharp corner from territorial dependency to state sov­ ereignty, apd, as in all sharp historical turns, there was a blaze of ex­ citement, a bitter political contest, accompanied by more than the usual amount of bumptiousness and belligerency, of heart-burnings and jealousy, over which fourteen years may have deposited a thin layer of forgetfulness, through which a foolhardy explorer might break, to the discomfiture of himself and the revival of volcanic mem­ ories. But, pressed by your esteemed President for a paper upon the admission of Nebraska to the Union, and unable, from present expe­ rience and observation, to go back farther than that period, I have .consented to take up this subject, and trust that I may handle it with sufficient discretion to obtain your pardon for.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Usurpation and the Constitution: Historical and Contemporary Issues Robert P
    No. 871 Delivered February 17, 2005 April 11, 2005 Judicial Usurpation and the Constitution: Historical and Contemporary Issues Robert P. George Judicial power can be used, and has been used, for both good and ill. However, in a basically just demo- Talking Points cratic republic, judicial power should never be exer- • Decisions in which the courts usurp the cised lawlessly—even for desirable ends. Judges are authority of the people are not merely incor- not legislators. The legitimacy of their decisions, par- rect; they are themselves unconstitutional. ticularly those decisions that displace legislative judg- ments, depends entirely on the truth of the judicial • Until now, a social consensus regarding the basic definition of marriage meant that claim that the court was authorized by law to settle we did not need to resolve the question at the matter. When this claim is false, a judicial edict is the federal level. not redeemed by its good consequences, for any such edict constitutes a usurpation of the just authority of • The judicial redefinition of marriage is a crime with two victims. The first and obvi- the people to govern themselves through the consti- ous victim is the institution of marriage tutional procedures of deliberative democracy. Deci- itself, and the second is the system of delib- sions in which the courts usurp the authority of the erative democracy. However, there will people are not merely incorrect; they are themselves likely be a third victim—namely, federalism. unconstitutional. And they are unjust. • If we do not have a federal marriage The First Test amendment, then marriage will erode quickly by judicial imposition or by the There were, and are, scholars and statesmen who gradual integration into the formal and believe that courts should not be granted the power informal institutions of society of same-sex to invalidate legislation in the name of the Constitu- couples.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020-2021 Minnesota-North Dakota Application for Reciprocity Benefits
    2020-2021 MINNESOTA-NORTH DAKOTA APPLICATION FOR RECIPROCITY BENEFITS MINNESOTA OFFICE OF HIGHER EDUCATION NORTH DAKOTA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM GENERAL INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS Minnesota-North Dakota Tuition Reciprocity Program 2020-2021 Academic year (Fall 2020-Spring/Summer 2021) ✓ To avoid delay, applications must be mailed directly to the appropriate state agency by the applicant ✓ The application must be completed in ink or typed ✓ APPLICATION FOR RECIPROCITY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL HOW TO APPLY: Complete this application IN FULL and sign the certification. Mail the completed application DIRECTLY to the higher education agency located in the state of your residence. Reciprocity recipients who earned credits during the 2019-2020 academic year will automatically have benefits renewed for 2020-2021 at the institution reporting credits for the student during the 2019-2020 academic year. Therefore, these students do NOT need to complete a reciprocity application for the 2020-2021 academic year. If your current institution has not received notification of your renewal status by November 1, 2020, please contact the administering agency in your state of residence. APPLICATION DEADLINES COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: The application for tuition reciprocity must be correctly completed and postmarked by the last day of classes in the term for which benefits are needed. The application deadline, except those in vocational and technical programs, is the last day of classes at the institution you are or will be attending in the term that benefits are required. Applications will not be processed retroactively. If you wish to participate in the program for the entire academic year, your application must be correctly completed and postmarked by the last day of scheduled classes in the fall term at the institution you are or will be attending.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Surrounding States *For Those Chapters That Are Made up of More Than One State We Will Submit Education to the States and Surround States of the Chapter
    List of Surrounding States *For those Chapters that are made up of more than one state we will submit education to the states and surround states of the Chapter. Hawaii accepts credit for education if approved in state in which class is being held Accepts credit for education if approved in state in which class is being held Virginia will accept Continuing Education hours without prior approval. All Qualifying Education must be approved by them. Offering In Will submit to Alaska Alabama Florida Georgia Mississippi South Carolina Texas Arkansas Kansas Louisiana Missouri Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Arizona California Colorado New Mexico Nevada Utah California Arizona Nevada Oregon Colorado Arizona Kansas Nebraska New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Utah Wyoming Connecticut Massachusetts New Jersey New York Rhode Island District of Columbia Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Delaware District of Columbia Maryland New Jersey Pennsylvania Florida Alabama Georgia Georgia Alabama Florida North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Hawaii Iowa Illinois Missouri Minnesota Nebraska South Dakota Wisconsin Idaho Montana Nevada Oregon Utah Washington Wyoming Illinois Illinois Indiana Kentucky Michigan Missouri Tennessee Wisconsin Indiana Illinois Kentucky Michigan Ohio Wisconsin Kansas Colorado Missouri Nebraska Oklahoma Kentucky Illinois Indiana Missouri Ohio Tennessee Virginia West Virginia Louisiana Arkansas Mississippi Texas Massachusetts Connecticut Maine New Hampshire New York Rhode Island Vermont Maryland Delaware District of Columbia
    [Show full text]