Obama orders public schools to allow transgendered to use bathroom of choice

[MrT]

Nope. Nothing in there about bathrooms.

The argument in this case comes down to an interpretation of "sex" under Title 9 of the Education Amendments of 1972. The law prevents discrimination on the basis of sex and the DoE has enforced that law for more than 40 years. For most of that time, "sex" has been interpreted to only reference the sex of the person at birth. However, the law does not disallow and there is no legal precedent that prevents the DoE from interpreting "sex" to reference to another definition, including a sincerely held belief about their current sexual classification.

 

[Henrin]

The argument in this case comes down to an interpretation of "sex" under Title 9 of the Education Amendments of 1972. The law prevents discrimination on the basis of sex and the DoE has enforced that law for more than 40 years. For most of that time, "sex" has been interpreted to only reference the sex of the person at birth. However, the law does not disallow and there is legal precedent that prevents the DoE from interpreting "sex" to reference to another definition, including a sincerely held belief about their current sexual classification.

You do realize that scientifically transsexuals are their born sex, right? How is going to win that argument when scientifically he is wrong?

 

[legalimmigrant]

The President has such authority, you seem to forget that the President controls the government school system (Dept of Education), must drive you crazy(er).

Nonsense. Schools are local, not federal. Department of Education was created by Carter as a payback to the teacher's union thugs for their support. Their main mission is interference under the guise of civil rights. If the DoE got disbanded today, as it should, not a single school would close and not a single child would be denied education. In fact, schools would have more money for education when unburdened from complying with the crazies in the D.C.

 

[MrT]

I can see just visualize women using the men's restrooms at entertainment venues where there just aren't enough women's bathrooms. Then that crowds out the men, and then we have to pee over the fence.

As Confucius says, "One problem begats another."

I would imagine that the definition is probably going to be one of a "sincerely held beliefs."

 

[Zyphlin]

Disagree with this strongly, in part because I don't feel this is something the Feds should be threatening federal funding over, and in part because legitimate transgenderism should be something that is not in any way significantly impacting schools.

This is not a process that younger folks, especially pre-high school individuals, should be undergoing. An amazingly small percentage of the population is transgender to begin with, and the percentage of those that go through the process at a young age where it ends up being a mistake is significantly higher than later in life. This has all the hallmarks of an attempt to use federal funds and the school system to push a political and social agenda, as opposed to actually working for any true advocacy for children or for the betterment of our education system.

 

[MrT]

Gay marriage isn't the law of their land. The Supreme Court can't make law. Just like the Feds don't have the authority to pull this bull****.

Gay Marriage is the law of the land because the Supreme Court INTERPRETED the Constitution such that the Constitution makes Gay Marriage the law of the land.

But keep beating your head against that wall. It's amusing.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Obama administration tells public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms of their choice | Fox News



I have made it very clear that I could really care less about what bathroom a transgendered person uses. My problem with this "order", though, is illustrated by this sentence...

While the letter does not have the force of law, it does warn that schools that do not abide by the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.



If the order does not have the force of law then how can there be penalties imposed for not complying with it? It either has force backing it or it doesn't and the threat of consequence for non compliance is CLEARLY force.

Does the administration have the constitutional authority to issue such an order?

No, absolutely not. If they did, then the order would have the force of law. As it is, it's simply a suggestion.

 

[apdst]

Gay Marriage is the law of the land because the Supreme Court INTERPRETED the Constitution such that the Constitution makes Gay Marriage the law of the land.

But keep beating your head against that wall. It's amusing.

Wrong on both counts. You need to read The Constitution

 

[Lovebug]

If Obama can order bathroom policies, what is next? Obama wont be Prez for much longer. Does it not worry you that POTUS is overreaching?
Plug in a different scenario, a different Prez and a different "suggestion" from the WH. Will you still feel it is ok?
Get your heads out of people's gender identity and think.

 

[Henrin]

How can something lead to lawsuits and loss of federal funding and not have the force of law behind it?

 

[legalimmigrant]

The argument in this case comes down to an interpretation of "sex" under Title 9 of the Education Amendments of 1972. The law prevents discrimination on the basis of sex and the DoE has enforced that law for more than 40 years. For most of that time, "sex" has been interpreted to only reference the sex of the person at birth. However, the law does not disallow and there is legal precedent that prevents the DoE from interpreting "sex" to reference to another definition, including a sincerely held belief about their current sexual classification.

Than how can the feds claim that an all-male company does not hire enough women if half of the employees can claim at the audit time that they are females, and never mind their birth certificates?

There is no end to the liberal "you are what you feel you are" idiocy.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

No, absolutely not. If they did, then the order would have the force of law. As it is, it's simply a suggestion.

If there are consequences attached(withholding of funds) then by definition it carries the force of law. Suggestions have no such force behind them.

 

[MrT]

How are gender specific facilities not discriminatory in the first place? Separate but equal has been declared unconstitutional when concerning race but appears to be just peachy for gender. Just label the restrooms (and locker rooms) US and THEM and let everyone decide which they prefer to be that day.

The reasoning behind this logic appears semi-logical at first glance, but you are forgetting that the Government can engage in discrimination so long as they have a legitimate governmental interest and the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The argument in favor of maintaining separate but equal facilities based on race was simply not strong enough in that situation. The argument in favor of maintaining separate but equal facilities based on sex is a stronger argument (although the argument does seem weaker these days).

 

[Henrin]

Gay Marriage is the law of the land because the Supreme Court INTERPRETED the Constitution such that the Constitution makes Gay Marriage the law of the land.

But keep beating your head against that wall. It's amusing.

Wrong. The Supreme Court can't change a law into something it never was.

 

[soot]

Given that individual states raise varying degrees of dollars, the distribution of dollars at the federal level more often than not helps states than merely redistributes the funds to them with strings attached. Furthermore, the benefits accrued to the students cannot be underestimated. In the past several decades, the quality of education has increased for numerous populations due to efforts at the federal level. States may have passed laws declaring they would do X, Y, or Z, but the enforcement was lackluster, sometimes unions (who are most powerful at the state and local level) quashed reform, and so on. With the force of the federal government, for instance, peoples like me were able to be given an equitable education (allowed to stay within my community no less) and become a highly educated and productive member of society.

You may want your revolution, but I fear this is out of ignorance rather than actual righteousness.

I think when government works toward Bentham's principal of ensuring the greatest good/happiness for the greatest number it tends to work best.

That isn't to say that that the minority should be carted off to the ovens but neither should some minority or another so frequently be the locus of fundamental social change in America.

When the federal government is using tax dollars to ensure the best education for the greatest number of kids I can hardly fault it.

When the federal government steps in to an ongoing social debate which is still undecided in the minds of a great many Americans and extorts conservative states in to kowtowing to progressive liberal policy by making their children's schools a battlefield in the war for social justice the government is acting tyrannically.

Understand here, I'm conservative in many respects but when it comes to LGBT issues I tend to break ranks with conservative thinkers and side almost exclusively with progressives. I support SSM and SS adoption, I really don't care whether or not a tranny shares my bathroom, and I raise my kids to be open minded and accepting of people whose sexual preference and gender identity are different than what they see in the home and in their daily life.

My argument isn't about where I stand on social issues but where I stand on governance.

Fundamental social change should be something that comes from the people through their duly elected representatives in the legislature.

 

[TheGoverness]

Wrong. The Supreme Court can't change a law into something it never was.

They didn't change anything in the US Constitution. They didn't introduce a new amendment or anything like that.

SCOTUS ruled on a reinterpretation of the Constitution. That's what their supposed to do anyways.

 

[MrT]

Disagree with this strongly, in part because I don't feel this is something the Feds should be threatening federal funding over, and in part because legitimate transgenderism should be something that is not in any way significantly impacting schools.

This is not a process that younger folks, especially pre-high school individuals, should be undergoing. An amazingly small percentage of the population is transgender to begin with, and the percentage of those that go through the process at a young age where it ends up being a mistake is significantly higher than later in life. This has all the hallmarks of an attempt to use federal funds and the school system to push a political and social agenda, as opposed to actually working for any true advocacy for children or for the betterment of our education system.

The logic of your argument is really hard to follow. You appear to be arguing that the federal government should not engage in this type of action, specifically for pre-highschool individuals, because transgenders amongst these individuals doesn't occur very often and because it may encourage a transgender transition that the person may regret later in life.

But we don't design laws or worry about discrimination on the basis of how often the discrimination occurs or whether the move might encourage individuals to include themselves amongst the discriminated group.

 

[Zyphlin]

No, absolutely not. If they did, then the order would have the force of law. As it is, it's simply a suggestion.

It's a suggestion with the implication of action if the suggestion isn't followed. It's normal that some are having issues with such. I have zero doubt there'd not be similar outrage if the POTUS was merely "suggesting" that intelligent design be taught in all schools, with the implication that education funds could be removed if that did not occur.

 

[MrT]

Wrong on both counts. You need to read The Constitution

Please.

I am an attorney that is bar certified in two states.

 

[Henrin]

They didn't change anything in the US Constitution. They didn't introduce a new amendment or anything like that.

SCOTUS ruled on a reinterpretation of the Constitution. That's what their supposed to do anyways.

Only congress has the authority to pass law granted to them by the constitution. The best thing the courts can do is strike down existing law, but of course people don't want that in cases like this, so they decided to expand on existing law instead.

 

[legalimmigrant]

If there are consequences attached(withholding of funds) then by definition it carries the force of law. Suggestions have no such force behind them.

No, because withholding is not a fine. Funds not withheld are a gift for which schools can apply if they meet certain conditions.

 

[Henrin]

Please.

I am an attorney that is bar certified in two states.

I would ask you to prove it, but that would be asking for personal information.

 

[MrT]

How can something lead to lawsuits and loss of federal funding and not have the force of law behind it?

People initiate lawsuits all the time without any assurance that they will win the lawsuit. It is only once a decision has the weight of precedent from the relevant jurisprudence that we are able to say that something has the force of law.

 

[Gaius46]

If there are consequences attached(withholding of funds) then by definition it carries the force of law. Suggestions have no such force behind them.

Actually it doesn't. The President can't legally force school districts to do anything. This is more SC sanctioned extortion.

 

[Henrin]

People initiate lawsuits all the time without any assurance that they will win the lawsuit. It is only once a decision has the weight of precedent from the relevant jurisprudence that we are able to say that something has the force of law.

A lawsuit is the force of law. It's a bit silly to argue that you can sue someone and not bring the law down on them.