fundamentally, unlike the statute we approved in Lord, the Open Meeting Law and the Data Practices Act impede the constitutional autonomy granted to the Board of Regents because they are not conditions attached through appropriations. These statutes are generally applicable laws that do not allow the University the choice of whether to accept conditions along with appropriations. In Lord, we held that the legislature could place reasonable conditions on the use of funds appropriated to the University that do not impede the internal control and management of the University. 257 N.W.2d at 802. This principle is consistent with the general separation of powers structure of our federal system of government. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (<HOLDING>). The majority blatantly ignores this
holding that states may exercise their supervisory power to take custody of bank savings deposits holding that upon approval by congress a compact between states becomes federal law that binds the states holding that congress did not authorize the states to enforce federal law where it gave states regulatory control through enforcement of their own laws holding that congress may condition states receipt of federal funds if it does so unambiguously enabling states to exercise their choice knowingly recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states