By compelling the University to punish Gibbons, the federal government is acting as criminal law enforcement agency. They are using the University rules, which they compelled the University to establish and enforce, to convict Gibbons in a proxy court for a crime without due process. This is unconstitutional.
What crime are you referring to? This is a severe, life altering punishment in terms of reputation and career. I'd take a $500 fine or a couple nights in jail (criminal penalties) over expulsion any day.
The federal government compelled the University to punish Gibbons under Title IX. When the government punishes you for violation of a law, by definition, that means you have been found guilty of a crime.
I think Gibbons would like to be compensated for the damage done to his reputation and earning capability caused by this. He is going to find it hard to get a decent job and live a normal life. His name has been dragged through the mud.
The Supreme Court takes cases where a citizen's liberty has been taken away without due process more seriously than a regulatory case. This case has huge legal and social implications. I don't see this as a scandal for the football program.
Reread my comment. Black's Law Dictionary is what the courts use to determine the meaning of words (among other things). Under Black's definition of a crime, my argument is that Gibbons was, in fact, convicted of a crime. There is a legitimate question as to whether the federal government compelled the University to punish Gibbons.
Black's Law Dictionary defines a crime as "A social harm that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty treated as the subject-matter of a criminal proceeding." The elements of a crime are in bold. The key Constitutional issue here is whether Gibbons alleged socially harmful action was made punishable by law.
The current administration has provided "guidance" to schools stating that under federal law ("Title IX") schools have the responsibility to punish ("enforcement strategies") the social harm ("sexual violence") alleged to have been caused by Gibbons. From the White House:
"The guidance, the first specifically advising schools, colleges and universities that their responsibilities under Title IX include protecting students from sexual violence, also details enforcement strategies that schools and the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) may use to end sexual violence, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its effects."
This "guidance" on how to enforce Title IX amounts to the federal government punishing Gibbons by compelling the University to punish him for his alleged act. As evidenced by the timeline issued by the University, the "guidance" caused the University to change its policy: "August [2011] - University of Michigan implements an interim policy on student-to-student sexual misconduct that reflects the U.S. Department of Education guidance."
Gibbons was convicted of a crime. Just because expulsion isn't a typical criminal punishment doesn't mean that Gibbons wasn't convicted of a crime. The issue isn't the type of punishment, it's whether the government is behind the punishment. See the definition.
Gibbons was convicted of a crime without due process. The standard of proof in his case was unconstitutionally lowered to "preponderance of the evidence." Gibbons was also denied a speedy trial and all other protections given to those charged with a crime in this country.
Brendan, if you're reading this, I would love to be on your legal team.
When did it become acceptable in this country to ruin a reputation and life based on one person's statement and a preponderance of evidence standard, especially 5 years after the fact. Stop putting women on a pedestal and read the Constitution for comprehension. As a lawyer, I understand this is not a court of law and the Constitution is not considered to be applicable here, but maybe it should be. We, as alumni, should have the most say in how our University is run. Who is making these rules?
Have you ever listened to an interview with the guy? Did you see his cameo on the apprentice? His arrogance is plain to see. And even from that one episode I could tell he was no genius.
As the brain ages, it is much less willing to meet the world halfway. Instead of easily re-molding itself to accommodate new kinds of inputs, the older brain is more constrained - a biological truth known to anyone who’s struggled to pick up a new language later in life. While many processes contribute to this change in the brain’s learning potential, scientists believe that some of the changes are brought about by the gradual accumulation of molecules, like Lynx1, that limit the brain’s adaptability.
We can't get political here right. So we can't state the real reasons. You're scratching you're head? Are you that stupid? Why are football players wearing f'n pink for a month. Jackass.
If you are going to support your argument condeming Gibbons with references to "statistics" please cite. Think about bias when looking at who performed these "studies", and why peer review and the scientific method is important in research. Also think about how reluctanct people are to come to the defense of accused "rapist" when making your argument, or publish any research suggesting that false rape accusations are a problem in society.
This article is a perfect example, in my legal opinion, of why laws were created against libel. When an article with defamatory overtones is published, a news source may be guilty of libel in a civil trial if they acted negligently. Negligence being defined here as not using standard journalistic procedures to investigate both sides of the story. If a jury believes the story is untrue, by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely untrue than not, it is my understanding that the writer of the this story and his employer may held liable for damages; and enhanced damages if malicious intent is demonstrated.
I went to Emory after I graduated from Michigan. I would watch Michigan games at Famous pub. It is in Decatur near the Emory campus on Druid Hills in the Toco Plaza. It is kind of a local dive, although Emory students hang out there occasionally, but they have a lot of good screens and they'll always put Michigan games on one of them (and even though the owner went to Michigan State he is still a good guy). Most of the people there are SEC/ACC but you can usually find a few Michigan fans. It's more convenient than driving downtown and dealing with Atlanta traffic/parking etc.
I don't consider your comments to be shouting, reasonable disagreement is welcome. I think you have proposed some ideas as to why you don't think Congress should regulate the NCAA, not whether they could. You are probably aware of how broadly the commerce clause can be interpreted. Lopez (sorry, legal reference) may have put some limits on this, but the court clearly stated that Congress could regulate when the activity in question involved people moving from state to state, like for a bowl game. The economic impact is huge, and the rational basis here is clear.
As for the lobbyist statement, I was merely suggesting this as circumstantial evidence that the BCS is afraid of congressional regulation, which I believe it is.
Also, you wouldn't have to reconstitute the NCAA, merely compel the existing NCAA body to vote down the BCS system. I don't see this as an equal protection measure, because there is no protected class here. The courts will likely defer to the legislature, as they should, about the importance of the policy.
The bowls are not-non profit, so I think the anti-trust argument could be valid here. I'm not sure how the non-profit status would affect this.
The bill in Congress derives its authority from the Commerce clause. This is subject to a rational basis review. This is interpreted broadly, and if the bill passes, should be easily held up by the courts. I think this would be the better way to bring about the change we are looking for.
First, I was responding to an above argument that college football isn't popular enough for Congress to waste its time on.
Second,
I disagree that congress was investigating steroids in baseball primarily as a public health issue. They were primarily investigating to protect the sanctity of the sport, i.e. players gaining an unfair advantage over others, including baseball legends who own legitimate records. So, the concept of fair play is relevant in the regulation of both sports.
Also, you seem to be suggesting that congress doesn't have the authority to regulate NCAA football. Congress has authority over all NCAA sports. This is an accepted fact by both the members of Congress and the BCS, which is why they so heavily lobby Congress. Clearly, NCAA football affects interstate commerce, and I'm sure Congress could find a rational basis to regulate here, and utilize the power of the purse for enforcement.
According to a Harris interactive poll of the popularity of sports, college football ranks third, one percentage point behind baseball. Congress recently spent an enormous amount of energy to protect fairness in baseball, and there is no reason to think they wouldn't spend some energy on protecting fairness in college football as well. Congress has already held hearings on the BCS in the past, and the BCS has only become more unpopular with time. Try to tell Texans right now that college football isn't important.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=719
What bill would not pass with 95%+ public support. College football is important to many of us. You're on this board aren't you? Not as important as national security or the economy, but important enough for congressmen not to want to piss off their constituency by voting against it if we make it known that we will be pissed off. That is why I started this post. There may not be much that our government can do to definitively eliminate terrorism or improve the economy, but this is a problem they (we) can actually do somethething about with no taxpayer money involved and little time or effort.
He's already proposed an eight game playoff. Didn't you see 60 minutes? The rest of the details can be delegated and he can concentrate on what's really important.
Obama has already discussed this with Barton. I have faith that the President-elect can do a better job of oversight than BCS commissioners with their hands in the pot.
There is no need for criminal enforcement. The threat of withholding federal funds is enough for to scare any university or conference into compliance. The details can be worked out in later drafts, of course we wouldn't want it to be void for vagueness.
I did not mean to generalize townies, only reference the specific townies I had met on a particular night, who reminded me of the people Brian mentioned who probably did way too much coke judging by their behavior. So I apologize to the Ann Arbor townies, who are probably the best townies in the world that I unfortunately didn't have the pleasure of meeting.
I can relate to this post almost exactly, except replace engineer with scientist. Ann Arbor can be a very sad place to live after graduation. I realized this while walking home alone on a cold winter night from the Blind Pig after a night out by myself trying to make new friends playing pool with the townies (who are pretty damn sketchy) because all of my friends moved out of town. After a couple of years of that I went to grad school in a new city, and got to repeat the whole process of finding a life and losing it again and coming to terms with mediocrity. But after moving back to my hometown my career has improved and things are good...for now; although my state of mind is probably still too dependent on the success of the Michigan football team. Maybe it reminds me of 1997 when I was a senior and had front row season tickets in the student section (right in front of the one hot semi-asian cheerleader we had that year), good friends, and a lot of potential.
Recent Comments
By compelling the University to punish Gibbons, the federal government is acting as criminal law enforcement agency. They are using the University rules, which they compelled the University to establish and enforce, to convict Gibbons in a proxy court for a crime without due process. This is unconstitutional.
Larry will now be permanently separated from the University and MGoBlog.
What crime are you referring to? This is a severe, life altering punishment in terms of reputation and career. I'd take a $500 fine or a couple nights in jail (criminal penalties) over expulsion any day.
The federal government compelled the University to punish Gibbons under Title IX. When the government punishes you for violation of a law, by definition, that means you have been found guilty of a crime.
I think Gibbons would like to be compensated for the damage done to his reputation and earning capability caused by this. He is going to find it hard to get a decent job and live a normal life. His name has been dragged through the mud.
The Supreme Court takes cases where a citizen's liberty has been taken away without due process more seriously than a regulatory case. This case has huge legal and social implications. I don't see this as a scandal for the football program.
Reread my comment. Black's Law Dictionary is what the courts use to determine the meaning of words (among other things). Under Black's definition of a crime, my argument is that Gibbons was, in fact, convicted of a crime. There is a legitimate question as to whether the federal government compelled the University to punish Gibbons.
Black's Law Dictionary defines a crime as "A social harm that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty treated as the subject-matter of a criminal proceeding." The elements of a crime are in bold. The key Constitutional issue here is whether Gibbons alleged socially harmful action was made punishable by law.
The current administration has provided "guidance" to schools stating that under federal law ("Title IX") schools have the responsibility to punish ("enforcement strategies") the social harm ("sexual violence") alleged to have been caused by Gibbons. From the White House:
"The guidance, the first specifically advising schools, colleges and universities that their responsibilities under Title IX include protecting students from sexual violence, also details enforcement strategies that schools and the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) may use to end sexual violence, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its effects."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/04/vice-president-bi…
This "guidance" on how to enforce Title IX amounts to the federal government punishing Gibbons by compelling the University to punish him for his alleged act. As evidenced by the timeline issued by the University, the "guidance" caused the University to change its policy: "August [2011] - University of Michigan implements an interim policy on student-to-student sexual misconduct that reflects the U.S. Department of Education guidance."
Gibbons was convicted of a crime. Just because expulsion isn't a typical criminal punishment doesn't mean that Gibbons wasn't convicted of a crime. The issue isn't the type of punishment, it's whether the government is behind the punishment. See the definition.
Gibbons was convicted of a crime without due process. The standard of proof in his case was unconstitutionally lowered to "preponderance of the evidence." Gibbons was also denied a speedy trial and all other protections given to those charged with a crime in this country.
Brendan, if you're reading this, I would love to be on your legal team.
When did it become acceptable in this country to ruin a reputation and life based on one person's statement and a preponderance of evidence standard, especially 5 years after the fact. Stop putting women on a pedestal and read the Constitution for comprehension. As a lawyer, I understand this is not a court of law and the Constitution is not considered to be applicable here, but maybe it should be. We, as alumni, should have the most say in how our University is run. Who is making these rules?
Have you ever listened to an interview with the guy? Did you see his cameo on the apprentice? His arrogance is plain to see. And even from that one episode I could tell he was no genius.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=understanding-the-brains
We can't get political here right. So we can't state the real reasons. You're scratching you're head? Are you that stupid? Why are football players wearing f'n pink for a month. Jackass.
If you are going to support your argument condeming Gibbons with references to "statistics" please cite. Think about bias when looking at who performed these "studies", and why peer review and the scientific method is important in research. Also think about how reluctanct people are to come to the defense of accused "rapist" when making your argument, or publish any research suggesting that false rape accusations are a problem in society.
This article is a perfect example, in my legal opinion, of why laws were created against libel. When an article with defamatory overtones is published, a news source may be guilty of libel in a civil trial if they acted negligently. Negligence being defined here as not using standard journalistic procedures to investigate both sides of the story. If a jury believes the story is untrue, by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely untrue than not, it is my understanding that the writer of the this story and his employer may held liable for damages; and enhanced damages if malicious intent is demonstrated.
More often than anyone wants to admit. Be careful young men.