DOCSLIB.ORG

Appellant's Brief in Support of Appeal of Dismissal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appellant's Brief in Support of Appeal of Dismissal 20140194 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JUNE 25, 2014 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Paul J. Sorum ) Petitioner and Appellant ) SUPREME COURT vs. ) No. 20140194 Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota ) Drew Wrigley, Lt. Governor of North Dakota ) Ryan Taylor, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Governor of ND ) Ellen Chaffee, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Lt. Gov. of ND ) Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State ) Respondents and Appellees ) (Ref. Burleigh County CASE NO. 08-2014-CV-0173) APPELLANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF DISMISSAL Brief By: Paul J. Sorum, Petitioner/Appellant 3501 Calypso Dr, Bismarck, North Dakota 58504 Phone: 701-219-5601 I Table of Contents Section Paragraph Nature and Facts of Case and Proceedings ............................................... 1 Legal Argument ......................................................................................... 18 Discrimination is Severe and Pervasive ................................................... 51 Relief Requested ......................................................................................... 65 II TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASE LAW Citation Paragraph Ableman v. Booth, 62 US 506 - Supreme Court 1859 ..................................................... 14 Francis v. Francis, 2014 ND 111 - ND: Supreme Court 2014 ........................................ 28 Gullickson v. Kline, 2004 ND 76, ¶ 16, 678 N.W.2d 138 ................................................ 28 Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F. 3d 130 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2008 ........... 51 James Valley Grain v. David, 2011 ND 160, 802 N.W.2d 158 ...................................... 1(3) Kiner v. Well, 71 N.W.2d 743, 750-51 (N.D. 1955) ..................... 21, 22, 23, 24, 47, 48, 49 North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07................................... 3, 6, 23, 26, 48 Parr v. Woodmen, 791 F. 2d 888 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1986 .................. 54, 55 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 US 833 - Supreme Court 1992 ............................... 38 Reed v. Reed, 404 US 71 - Supreme Court 1971 ....................................................... 41, 42 Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013 ND 30, 827 N.W.2d 330 . ... 4, 11, 13, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 48, 49, 55 Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415 (1920) ............................................. 41 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618 - Supreme Court 1969 .............................................. 43 State ex rel. Sathre v. Moody, 65 N.D. 340, 258 N.W. 558, 566 ...................................... 33 Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 US 254 - Supreme Court 1986 ................................................... 39 Williams v. Rhodes, 393 US 23 - Supreme Court 1968 ................................................... 46 III CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS and STATUTES Law Paragraph North Dakota Century Code § 16.1-11-06 (2) ... 1(3), 5, 6, 11, 19, 20, 23, 33, 37, 47, 48, 49, 55 North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-09-01(b)(1) ............................................................. 64 North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-11-01 (3) and (4) .................................................... 49 North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-14-01 (2) ................................................................. 37 North Dakota Constitution Article V, § 3 ................................ 2, 19, 33, 37, 47, 48, 49, 55 North Dakota Constitution Article I, § 24 ......................................................................... 8 North Dakota Constitution Article V, § 7 .......................................................................... 9 North Dakota Constitution Article I, § 22 ....................................................................... 35 North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 4(c)(1)(E) ................................................ 57 Title 18 U.S. Code § 242 .................................................................................................. 52 Title 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b) ........................................................................................... 63 Title 42 U.S. Code § 1981 - Equal rights under the law .................................................. 53 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ........................................................................... 55 U.S. Constitution § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment ....................................................... 36 IV Nature and Facts of Case and Proceedings 1. On January 22, 2014, I, Paul J. Sorum, the above named Petitioner and Appellant, filed a petition in South Central District Court for relief in the form a Writ of Mandamus issued to Respondent Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota, and Respondent Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State, as follows (emphasis added): 1. For those reasons which are set forth hereafter, issuance of an order compelling Governor Jack Dalrymple to fulfill his Constitutional mandate to faithfully execute North Dakota election law codified in N.D.C.C. Title § 16.1 with respect to the 2012 June Primary Election, and the 2012 November General Election. 2. For those reasons which are set forth hereafter, declare that Jack Dalrymple and Ryan Taylor and their respective Lt. Governor candidates were not nominated in accordance with applicable North Dakota law and that the State Canvassing Board should not have certified these candidates. 3. Issuance of an order compelling Secretary of State Al Jaeger to fulfill his Constitutional mandate to faithfully execute and enforce North Dakota’s election laws, specifically by removing the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Jack Dalrymple and Ryan Taylor, from the June 12, 2012 ballot and the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot and/or by declaring their nominations and/or election to be null upon the grounds that these gubernatorial 1 candidates did not list and include their respective Lieutenant Governor candidates on the same certificate of endorsement form as is required by N.D.C.C. § 16.1-11-06 (2), which provisions state as follows: “If the petition or certificate of endorsement is for the office of governor or lieutenant governor, the petition or certificate must contain the names and other information required of candidates for both those offices.” (emphasis added) This language is clear and unambiguous, and the intent thereof is obvious and understandable. The use of the words “must” in this statute indicates that the provisions are meant to be mandatory. (See, e.g., James Valley Grain v. David, 2011 ND 160, 802 N.W.2d 158). 4. Issuance of an order compelling Secretary of State Al Jaeger to require the State Canvassing Board to adjust and certify the results of November 2012 General Election for Governor and Lt. Governor of North Dakota after removing the Republican candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor, Jack Dalrymple and Drew Wrigley, and Democratic candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor, Ryan Taylor and Ellen Chaffee, from the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot. (See Pages 1-2 of Docket #1, Petition to the North Dakota District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County for Writ of Mandamus) 2. In requesting this relief, this Appellant cited state law. The North Dakota State Constitution Article V, § 3 states (emphasis added): 2 Section 3. The governor and the lieutenant governor must be elected on a joint ballot. Each vote cast for a candidate for governor is deemed cast also for the candidate for lieutenant governor running jointly with the candidate for governor... (N.D. Const. art. V, § 3) 3. In July of 2012, the North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem issued an official opinion regarding 2012 Libertarian candidate for North Dakota governor, Roland Riemers, stating (emphasis added): Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that the gubernatorial candidate for the Libertarian Party was not nominated for governor according to state law because the requirement of N.D. Const. art. V, § 3 for a joint ballot for governor and lieutenant governor was not satisfied. (See N.D. Att'y Gen. Op. 2012-L-07) (See Appendix E of Docket #1, Petition to the North Dakota District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County for Writ of Mandamus). 4. In deciding against an appeal from the Libertarian candidate for governor in 2012, the North Dakota Supreme court wrote (emphasis added), “The Attorney General's interpretation of the mandatory constitutional requirement of N.D. Const. art. V, § 3 is persuasive, and the Secretary of State correctly applied that opinion.” Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013 ND 30, 827 N.W.2d 330. (See Appendix F of Docket #1, Petition to the North Dakota District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County for Writ of Mandamus) 5. The North Dakota Century Code § 16.1-11-06 (2) states (emphasis added): 3 If the petition or certificate of endorsement is for the office of governor and lieutenant governor, the petition or certificate must contain the names and other information required of candidates for both those offices. If the petition or certificate of endorsement is mailed, it must be in the possession of the secretary of state before four p.m. of the sixty-fourth day before the primary election. N. D. C. C. § 16.1-11-06 (2) 6. This section of North Dakota election law was also referenced in the same Attorney General’s Opinion which the North Dakota Supreme Court found "persuasive" (Att'y Gen. Op. 2012-L-07) (emphasis added): However, a plain reading of N.D.C.C. § 16.1-11-06(2) clearly reveals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • April 12, 2021 the Honorable Doug Burgum Governor of North Dakota
    April 12, 2021 The Honorable Doug Burgum Governor of North Dakota 600 E. Boulevard Bismarck, ND 58505 Dear Governor Burgum, As organizations representing physicians, long-term care providers and hospitals, we, the undersigned, sincerely thank you for your leadership throughout the pandemic. As North Dakota’s infection rates climbed and deaths increased, you recognized that local control efforts were not enough and took charge by implementing stronger controls to stop the spread. We applaud you for placing health needs and saving lives before politics. We, the undersigned, oppose HB 1323, as it eliminates authority for the governor and state health officer when North Dakota needs it most – during a pandemic. Your leadership of implementing a state-wide mask mandate significantly reduced COVID-19 infections throughout North Dakota. Statistics show North Dakota went from a high of 11,301 current infections on November 14 to 4,758 infections on December 7 – a 58 percent reduction. During this same period, North Dakota’s 14 day rolling average of positivity went from 15.70 percent on November 14 to 9.79 percent on December 6. Your actions saved lives. North Dakota’s infection rates were the highest in the country. People were dying. The most vulnerable – the elderly and long-term care residents – became the highest COVID-19 war casualties. Although this group represented only 10 percent of infections, statistics show this group resulted in 60 percent of deaths. We lost mothers, fathers, grandparents and loved ones way too soon, leaving survivors to deal with war-torn scars. As we learned from experience, voluntary mask requests and localized mandates are not effective.
    [Show full text]
  • South Dakota; and Texas, Complaint (PDF)
    Case 1:13-cv-00109-CSM Document 1 Filed 09/12/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHWEST DIVISION ___________________________________ ) STATES OF NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA ) NEVADA, AND TEXAS, ) COMPLAINT FOR ) DECLARATORY AND Plaintiffs, ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. _____ ) REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official ) Capacity as Administrator of the ) United States Environmental Protection Agency, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ ) INTRODUCTION 1. The States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nevada and Texas file this suit to compel the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“ Administrator ” or “ EPA ”), to take action mandated by the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. (the “ CAA ”) to designate areas of the country as attaining or not attaining the revised primary sulfur dioxide (“ SO 2”) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“ NAAQS ”). On June 2, 2010 the Administrator signed and EPA promulgated the revised SO 2 NAAQS. See 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 2010) (the “ SO 2 NAAQS ”). Once EPA sets a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires States to submit within one year to EPA information indicating which part of that State meets the new or revised NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d). Plaintiffs the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nevada and Texas each timely submitted to EPA their proposed designations. The CAA then establishes a nondiscretionary duty for the Administrator to designate all areas of the country as (1) “attainment” (if they are attaining the new or revised NAAQS), (2) “nonattainment” (if they are not attaining the NAAQS), or (3) “unclassifiable” (if there is inadequate information to make a designation).
    [Show full text]
  • Do Top Business Leaders Make Good Governors? a Regression Discontinuity Design
    1 Paper Presented for 5th Annual Public Finance Consortium— “Politics and Administration in Public Finance” School of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana University, Bloomington Do Top Business Leaders Make Good Governors? A Regression Discontinuity Design Can Chen, PhD Associate Professor Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Georgia State University Boyuan Zhao PhD Candidate Department of Public Policy and Administration Florida International University Please do not cite this paper without the authors’ permission. 1 2 INTRODUCTION Recently, a growing number of politicians with prominent business backgrounds are joining the battlefield of politics, running for key positions in offices. Donald Trump is the most recent example of a U.S. president who has constructed his own successful business empire before his political life. At state level, successful business figures have turned into politics and won governorship in different states. For example, Rick Scott, the 45th governor of Florida, was the owner of Hospital Corporation of America and a venture capitalist, and Kevin Stitt, current governor of Oklahoma, was the founder, chairman and CEO of Gateway Mortgage Group. These candidates have successful executive experience as business leaders, while many of them have little or no experience in public offices prior to their governor tenure. Their professional career path distinctively contrasts with “conventional” career politicians who typically hold law degrees, start their career from legal affair positions, and climb up the political ladder gradually. State governors are key actors in the budgeting process of the states. Governors are responsible for budget development and recommendation, in which promote their policy preference. Besides, they have line-item veto power on the state budget.
    [Show full text]
  • North Dakota Office of Lt
    North Dakota Office of Lt. Governor Data Sheet As of August 26, 2016 History of Office The Office of the Lt. Governor of North Dakota was established with the Constitution of 1889.1 Origins of the Office The Office of the Lt. Governor of North Dakota was created with statehood and the Constitution of 1889. Qualifications for Office The Council of State Governments (CSG) publishes the Book of the States (BOS) 2015. In chapter 4, Table 4.13 lists the Qualifications and Terms of Office for lieutenant governors: The Book of the States 2015 (CSG) at www.csg.org. Method of Election The National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA) maintains a list of the methods of electing gubernatorial successors at: http://www.nlga.us/lt-governors/office-of-lieutenant- governor/methods-of-election/. Duties and Powers A lieutenant governor may derive responsibilities one of four ways: from the Constitution, from the Legislature through statute, from the governor (thru gubernatorial appointment or executive order), thru personal initiative in office, and/or a combination of these. The principal and shared constitutional responsibility of every gubernatorial successor is to be the first official in the line of succession to the governor’s office. Succession to Office of Governor In 1898, Governor Frank A. Briggs died in office and was succeeded by Lt. Governor Joseph M. Devine who finished his term.2 In 2010, Governor John Hoeven resigned to take an elected seat in the U.S. Senate and Lt. Governor Jack Dalrymple succeeded to office and was subsequently elected in his own right.3 1 North Dakota Constitution of 1889 2 National Governors Association, Former Governors’ Bios 3 North Dakota Office of Governor Web Site, http://governor.nd.gov/ .
    [Show full text]
  • IS LESS Philip Hamburger† I. FREE EXERCISE
    HAMBURGER.BOOK.DOC 4/13/04 9:44 PM ESSAY MORE IS LESS∗ Philip Hamburger† I. FREE EXERCISE INALIENABLE .................................................... 838 A. The Inalienable Character of Religious Liberty ................. 839 B. The Definition of Religious Liberty..................................... 848 II. BOTH MORE AND LESS ................................................................. 858 A. The Contingency of Free Exercise in the Courts ................ 858 B. Mere Definition Rather than Condition? ............................ 861 C. Historical Explanations......................................................... 864 D. Expansion and Contingency................................................. 869 E. The Absolute Right of Religious Belief ............................... 872 F. Fratricide (or the Periphery Undermines the Core) ........... 874 G. No Harm, No Foul? .............................................................. 882 H. Other Examples..................................................................... 885 CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 890 S the First Amendment’s right of free exercise of religion condi- I tional upon government interests? Many eighteenth-century Americans said it was utterly unconditional. For example, James Madison and numerous contemporaries declared in 1785 that “the right of every man to exercise [‘Religion’] . is in its nature an un- alienable right” and “therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by
    [Show full text]
  • BASIN BITS | Spring 2017 7
    Spring 2017 BASINThe Official Publication of the Western BITS Dakota Energy Association A New President. A New Energy Policy. A New Frontier. Calling All Cultivators: Can We Keep Coal Viable? On the Hunt for Gold A New Sense of Optimism COMPLIMENTARY PLEASE TAKE ONE! Table of Spring 2017 Contents BASIN BITS Basin Bits is Printed for: The Western Dakota Energy Association OPENING REMARKS 29 Producing the Bakken: A Cost Association Office Analysis 1661 Capitol Way 9 From the Desk of the Western Bismarck, ND 58501 Dakota Energy Association’s 31 IOGCC Honors Lynn Helms with www.ndenergy.org President Prestigious Award Geoff Simon, Executive Director 11 From the Desk of the Western 32 On the Hunt for Gold Tel: (701) 527-1832 (cell) Email: [email protected] Dakota Energy Association’s 34 Legislative Line: Mixed Results for Printed by: Executive Director WDEA’s 2017 Legislative Agenda Matrix Group Publishing Inc. Please return undeliverable addresses to: 15 From the Desk of the Petroleum 35 Powering the Pursuit of Excellence 5605 Riggins Court, Second Floor Technology Research Centre PO Box 41270 Reno, NV 89504 Toll-free: (866) 999-1299 IN THE SPOTLIGHT Toll-free fax: (866) 244-2544 SPECIAL SECTION www.matrixgroupinc.net 36 ONEOK: Dedicated to Creating 17 Celebrating 25 Years of the Value President & CEO Jack Andress Williston Basin Petroleum Conference Operations Manager WDEA NEWS Shoshana Weinberg [email protected] 37 Regional Roundup A CLOSER LOOK Publishers 38 Tools of the Trade Peter Schulz 18 A New President. A New Energy Jessica
    [Show full text]
  • Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service Charles Kivett
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 33 | Number 2 Article 8 2-1-1955 Constitutional Law -- Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service Charles Kivett Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles Kivett, Constitutional Law -- Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service, 33 N.C. L. Rev. 262 (1955). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol33/iss2/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 33 state corporation receives the same benefits and protection as intra- state vendors.20 If such an analysis is correct, the decision should have little prac- tical effect upon the present administration and collection of use taxes,21 because the way will have been left open to impose tax collecting obli- gations on foreign corporations which make deliveries into a taxing state after encroaching upon its markets by inducing (e.g., by direct advertising, mail and telephone solicitation, etc.) its customers to cross the state line for tax-saving purposes. On the other hand, if this decision means that such corporations may now escape liability, its effect will no doubt be to increase the number of merchants seeking to capitalize on the sales tax of neighboring states at the expense of the local market, thereby further increasing the difficulties of adminis- tration and collection of the use tax.
    [Show full text]
  • National Governors' Association Annual Meeting 1977
    Proceedings OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING 1977 SIXTY-NINTH ANNUAL MEETING Detroit. Michigan September 7-9, 1977 National Governors' Association Hall of the States 444 North Capitol Street Washington. D.C. 20001 Price: $10.00 Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 12-29056 ©1978 by the National Governors' Association, Washington, D.C. Permission to quote from or to reproduce materials in this publication is granted when due acknowledgment is made. Printed in the United Stales of America CONTENTS Executive Committee Rosters v Standing Committee Rosters vii Attendance ' ix Guest Speakers x Program xi OPENING PLENARY SESSION Welcoming Remarks, Governor William G. Milliken and Mayor Coleman Young ' I National Welfare Reform: President Carter's Proposals 5 The State Role in Economic Growth and Development 18 The Report of the Committee on New Directions 35 SECOND PLENARY SESSION Greetings, Dr. Bernhard Vogel 41 Remarks, Ambassador to Mexico Patrick J. Lucey 44 Potential Fuel Shortages in the Coming Winter: Proposals for Action 45 State and Federal Disaster Assistance: Proposals for an Improved System 52 State-Federal Initiatives for Community Revitalization 55 CLOSING PLENARY SESSION Overcoming Roadblocks to Federal Aid Administration: President Carter's Proposals 63 Reports of the Standing Committees and Voting on Proposed Policy Positions 69 Criminal Justice and Public Protection 69 Transportation, Commerce, and Technology 71 Natural Resources and Environmental Management 82 Human Resources 84 Executive Management and Fiscal Affairs 92 Community and Economic Development 98 Salute to Governors Leaving Office 99 Report of the Nominating Committee 100 Election of the New Chairman and Executive Committee 100 Remarks by the New Chairman 100 Adjournment 100 iii APPENDIXES I Roster of Governors 102 II.
    [Show full text]
  • State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1986 State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A. Farber Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Farber, Daniel A., "State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause." (1986). Constitutional Commentary. 173. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/173 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STATE REGULATION AND THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Daniel A. Farber* The commerce clause empowers Congress to "regulate Com­ merce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."I Although it speaks only of congressional power, the clause has been interpreted to empower the federal courts to enjoin state laws that interfere unduly with interstate commerce.z Since the Marshall Court, the Supreme Court has continually modified its definition of the judicial role in overseeing state regula­ tion.3 The Court's current view of the so-called "dormant" com­ merce clause, in a nutshell, is as follows.4 State regulations having a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce are subject to stringent judicial scrutiny even if the discrimination was inadvertent.S On the other hand, regulations that burden interstate commerce without discriminating against it are subject to a less rigorous balancing test:6 a state law that burdens local and interstate commerce equally will be upheld if the law's local benefits outweigh the burden * Professor of Law, University of Minnesota.
    [Show full text]
  • 1953 Legislative Research Committee
    REPORT of the North Dakota Legislative Research Committee Pursuant to Chapter 54-35 of the 1949 Supplement to the .-..orth Dakota Revised Code of 1943 Thirty-third Legislative Assembly 1953 BUY "DAKOTA MAID'' FL.OUR MEMBERS OF THE NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMITTEE Roy A. Roland, Chairman A. J. Sandness Member, House of Representatives State Senator LaMoure, North Dakota LaMoure, North Dakota Walter Bubel, Vice Chairman I ver Solberg Member, House of Representatives State Senator Center, North Dakota Ray, North Dakota Dr. C. H. Hofstrand, Secretary Louis Leet Member, House of Representatives Member, House of Representatives Leeds, North Dakota Webster, North Dakota Clyde Duffy R. H. Lynch State Senator Member, House of Representatives Devils Lake, North Dakota Fortuna, North Dakota Edward Leno H. C. Nygaard State Senator Member, House of Representati¥es Tuttle, North Dakota Enderlin, North Dakota . Orris G. Nordhougen C. Emerson Murry State Senator Research Director Leeds, North Dakota Bismarck, North Dakota SUB-COMMITTEES Assessment: Highways: Representative C. H. Hofstrand, Senator Orris G. Nordhougen, Chairman Chairman Senator Edward Leno Senator A. J. Sandness Representative Louis Leet Representative Walter Bubel Representative Louis Leet Representative R. H. Lynch Farmers' Retirement: Representative Walter Bubel, Oil and Gas: Chairman Senator Clyde Duffy, Chairman Representative Roy A. Roland Senator lver Solberg Representative R. H. Lynch Higher Education: Revenue Producing Buildings: Representative H. C. Nygaard, Representative H. C. Nygaard, Chairman Chairman Senator A. J. Sandness Senator A. J. Sandness Representative C. H. Hofstrand Representative C. H. Hofstrand Township Laws: Senator Edward Leno, Chairman Representative R. H. Lynch Representative Louis Leet .. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Honorable C.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump Campaign Announces Agricultural Advisory Committee
    Trump - Make America Great Again! - AUGUST 16 2016 - TRUMP CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCES AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (New York, NY) August 16, 2016 – Donald J. Trump is pleased to announce his new Agricultural Advisory Committee. The men and women on the committee will provide pioneering new ideas to strengthen our nation’s agricultural industry as well as provide support to our rural communities. Mr. Trump understands the critical role our nation’s agricultural community plays in feeding not only our country, but the world, and how important these Americans are to powering our nation’s economy. The formation of the board represents Donald J. Trump’s endorsement of these individuals’ diverse skill sets and ideas that can improve the lives of those in agricultural communities. Mr. Trump has received widespread support from voters who understand he is the only candidate with the best interests of the agricultural community at the heart of his policies. Mr. Trump said, “The members of my agricultural advisory committee represent the best that America can offer to help serve agricultural communities. Many of these officials have been elected by their communities to solve the issues that impact our rural areas every day. I’m very proud to stand with these men and women, and look forward to serving those who serve all Americans from the White House.” The executive board members will convene on a regular basis. Advisory board members include: Charles Herbster – National Chairman of the Agricultural and Rural Advisory Committee for the Donald J. Trump Campaign for President Sam Clovis - National Chief Policy Advisor for the Donald J.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction Stripping Circa 2020: What the Dialogue (Still) Has to Teach Us
    MONAGHAN IN PRINTER FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 9/16/2019 3:03 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 69 OCTOBER 2019 NUMBER 1 JURISDICTION STRIPPING CIRCA 2020: WHAT THE DIALOGUE (STILL) HAS TO TEACH US HENRY P. MONAGHAN† ABSTRACT Since its publication in 1953, Henry Hart’s famous article, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, subsequently referred to as simply “The Dialogue,” has served as the leading scholarly treatment of congressional control over the federal courts. Now in its seventh decade, much has changed since Hart first wrote. This Article examines what lessons The Dialogue still holds for its readers circa 2020. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................2 A. 1953 and Beyond ......................................................................2 B. The Dialogue: A Preliminary Look ........................................5 I. The Essential Role of the Supreme Court ........................................10 A. Hart and the Court’s Essential Role....................................10 B. The Critical Responses and the Apparently Dominant View.........................................................................................13 C. Textual and Other Ambiguities ............................................16 D. The Supreme Court, Limited Government, and the Rule of Law...........................................................................................21 E. Purpose and Jurisdiction-Stripping ......................................27
    [Show full text]