Obama Administration to Issue Decree on Transgender Access to School Restrooms

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's one solution to strong centralized power, ie, having a single party in charge.
But I prefer even more than 2 parties.
And I don't trust any of'm to have total control.

I prefer maxamizing social justice.

 

[Revoltingest]

I prefer maxamizing social justice.

Seems a good goal.
But there's the issue of how to do it.
I prefer more limited government.
Sure.....implementing social justice is slower....but so is implementing evil when they're of a mind to do that.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Because I don't think any President has the Constitutional right to write laws.

Executive orders were created so that Presidents could implement the law as passed by Congress and (when necessary) approved by the Supreme Court, without having to go back to Congress to get them to approve every little detail of how to implement the law. This power to decide how FEDERAL laws are implemented is called an Inherent Power of the Presidency--that is, executives of any organization need to have the authority to make decisions about how to implement policies.

Congress has Delegated (as it is allowed to in the Constitution, and has chosen to do) part of its lawmaking Power to the President and the Executive Branch of government, in the form of the rulemaking process and executive orders. In the past several years, the courts have ruled against some executive orders as going to far. Others, they have found okay. Personally, I have little problem with the President issuing executive orders, and Congress or some interested party filing suit to challenge the order in court, and getting a judicial ruling on the legality. It's called Checks and Balances, and is built into the Constitution so that no one branch cannot take too much on itself (not that it doesn't happen sometimes). In addition, while Congress has delegated the power to specify how laws will be implemented (through executive orders and through the administrative rulemaking process), it can still negate executive orders by voting on them, for example, by not providing authorized funds to support implementation, or by outright voiding the order by passing a resolution to that effect.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thought experiment.....
Many are happy to have Obama wield great authority over us, more so than seems constitutional.
But imagine Sara Palin, Donald Trump or Ted Cruz as president.....& exercising the same level of power.
How's that feeln?

Except in this case the law has already been ruled as discriminatory in appeals courts, and the Justice Department has deemed it discriminatory. People are being granted rights, and without concern of infringement of the rights of others, as transsexuals "cause harm" to others no more than an interracial or homosexual couple - and it's not we're giving them weapons or pumping people full of more poisons. Also, there is already precedence when the "concerned" ******** were told to get over themselves. Sometimes the government does have to step in and so "no more." Especially when rights of people whose actions cause no real harm are being violated.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except in this case the law has already been ruled as discriminatory in appeals courts, and the Justice Department has deemed it discriminatory. People are being granted rights, and without concern of infringement of the rights of others, as transsexuals "cause harm" to others no more than an interracial or homosexual couple - and it's not we're giving them weapons or pumping people full of more poisons. Also, there is already precedence when the "concerned" ******** were told to get over themselves. Sometimes the government does have to step in and so "no more." Especially when rights of people whose actions cause no real harm are being violated.

Why would Obama give an order which is redundant?
Which court issued what ruling?

Btw, I don't argue against the policy.
I question any prez having such power.

 

[McBell]

Tee Hee!

Just wait until Hilary is in charge.


.

or Trump for that matter

 

[McBell]

This again is politicians trying to appease the squeaky wheel in order to get elected or re-elected.

Except that Obama cannot be re-elected...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I prefer more limited government.
Sure.....implementing social justice is slower....but so is implementing evil when they're of a mind to do that.

I suspect that many of those open to an approach wherein "implementing social justice is slower" are those not seriously impacted by social injustice, i.e., it is at attitude from privilege.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suspect that many of those open to an approach wherein "implementing social justice is slower" are those not seriously impacted by social injustice, i.e., it is at attitude from privilege.

I suspect that many who would grant government great & swift power to do
what is right, fail to consider that it will also use this power to do wrong.
My skepticism stems from the privilege of learnding some history.

(Yes, I meant "learnding".)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suspect that many who would grant government great & swift power to do
what is right, fail to consider that it will also use this power to do wrong.
My skepticism stems from the privilege of learnding some history.

(Yes, I meant "learnding".)

We can also just look at it realistically, and that it's not just one politician behind it. It's not his power alone. It's the power of him, the Justice Depart, and the Courts of Appeals IV Circuit, and they all have scientific data backing them. And not only that, it would never pass Congress because of the Republicans. No, it's not a "both sides" issue, because even though there are pockets of Democrats who wouldn't support it, but they would be the fringe because most Democrats would support it while most Republicans would oppose it. And, so because of the Republicans, it will never happen from more traditional means such as a congressional vote. Having rights bestowed upon a repressed and oppressed group shouldn't be up for negotiations as it should be assumed those rights are in existence.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can also just look at it realistically, and that it's not just one politician behind it. It's not his power alone. It's the power of him, the Justice Depart, and the Courts of Appeals IV Circuit, and they all have scientific data backing them. And not only that, it would never pass Congress because of the Republicans. No, it's not a "both sides" issue, because even though there are pockets of Democrats who wouldn't support it, but they would be the fringe because most Democrats would support it while most Republicans would oppose it. And, so because of the Republicans, it will never happen from more traditional means such as a congressional vote. Having rights bestowed upon a repressed and oppressed group shouldn't be up for negotiations as it should be assumed those rights are in existence.

I don't see this as a partisan issue.
It's more of a constitutional one, ie, the fed exercises power not specifically granted
by the Constitution by taxing us, & then giving it back with conditions attached.
By this method, there might be very few things the fed can't control.
While you might be Hamiltonian in this regard, I'm more Jeffersonian.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see this as a partisan issue.

The issue is very deeply rooted in partisanship. The Republicans and Conservatives make up the vast super-majority of people who are against LBGT rights. They are the ones who are worried about homosexuals molesting kids and rape happening in public restrooms. For them, it's tough **** that they are having to tolerate people they don't like in society. I'd have hell to pay if I started a business serving the public and made it a policy to not serve Conservative Christians. If were to have a program, business, or school that was run by federal dollars, I couldn't decide that I don't want Conservatives to have the same access everyone else does and expect to keep my funding.

It's more of a constitutional one, ie, the fed exercises power not specifically granted

Except American presidents have been signing executive orders and decrees since day one, and it isn't just the federal government behind this. Even medical practitioners are saying this needs to be done, and it's likely the Supreme Court will rule that the law is discriminatory. So you have people ranging from social advocates, many local governments, and all the way up the highest powers in the country saying the bill is discriminatory. The one key difference between this and Jim Crow was Johnson had the luxury of a Congress that would actually work with him and not shoot down everything he proposes just because it's something he proposed.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I don't see this as a partisan issue.
It's more of a constitutional one, ie, the fed exercises power not specifically granted
by the Constitution by taxing us, & then giving it back with conditions attached.
By this method, there might be very few things the fed can't control.
While you might be Hamiltonian in this regard, I'm more Jeffersonian.

16th amendment grants the power to tax income (a variety of other taxes were already authorized). Article I section 8 grants Congress the power to do a variety of things, then wraps up with the "necessary and proper" clause, which grants Congress the power to create any laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the prior list of powers--and which the Supreme Court has over the years interpreted pretty broadly, overall. I really don't see where Congress and the President have not been granted these powers, and the courts have fairly regularly curtailed both Congressional and Executive actions--remember Obama's recent order on immigration, for example? If you think this is an overreach of executive power, challenge it in court, or get Congress to specifically nullify it--or specifically grant it.

 

[Revoltingest]

The issue is very deeply rooted in partisanship.

But that's not my personal perspective, ie, it's not based upon which party is in power.

The Republicans and Conservatives make up the vast super-majority of people who are against LBGT rights. They are the ones who are worried about homosexuals molesting kids and rape happening in public restrooms. For them, it's tough **** that they are having to tolerate people they don't like in society. I'd have hell to pay if I started a business serving the public and made it a policy to not serve Conservative Christians. If were to have a program, business, or school that was run by federal dollars, I couldn't decide that I don't want Conservatives to have the same access everyone else does and expect to keep my funding.

Except American presidents have been signing executive orders and decrees since day one, and it isn't just the federal government behind this. Even medical practitioners are saying this needs to be done, and it's likely the Supreme Court will rule that the law is discriminatory. So you have people ranging from social advocates, many local governments, and all the way up the highest powers in the country saying the bill is discriminatory. The one key difference between this and Jim Crow was Johnson had the luxury of a Congress that would actually work with him and not shoot down everything he proposes just because it's something he proposed.

Medical practitioners will want what they want.
But I don't want the law bending to their will in such a way that it could also favor any agenda.

 

[Revoltingest]

16th amendment grants the power to tax income (a variety of other taxes were already authorized). Article I section 8 grants Congress the power to do a variety of things, then wraps up with the "necessary and proper" clause, which grants Congress the power to create any laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the prior list of powers--and which the Supreme Court has over the years interpreted pretty broadly, overall. I really don't see where Congress and the President have not been granted these powers, and the courts have fairly regularly curtailed both Congressional and Executive actions--remember Obama's recent order on immigration, for example? If you think this is an overreach of executive power, challenge it in court, or get Congress to specifically nullify it--or specifically grant it.

I already understood that the Amendment imposes few limitations.
There isn't even an upper limit to the income tax.
Under the 16th, there's nothing to prevent it exceeding 100%.
But when it's used to get around other parts of the Constitution, eg, the 9th & the 10th,
then this becomes troublesome. There's almost no practical limit on federal power
when it has absolute control over the purse strings, & unlimited ability to tax income.
(And of course the USSC goes along with this. They are after all, government
aparatchiks who were appointed & confirmed by pols who want to wield such power.)


By analogy, one may strictly follow the IRS code to avoid taxes, but the courts recognize that if a strategy is used for non-business reasons solely to reduce taxes, they'll disallow it because it runs counter to public policy. Government wants it both ways, ie, we can't violate either the letter or the spirit of the law, but gov will apply a more generous ad hoc standard to itself.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I understand that the Amendment imposes few limitations.
There isn't even an upper limit to the income tax.
Under the 16th, there's nothing to prevent it exceeding 100%.
But when it's used to get around other parts of the Constitution, eg, the 9th & the 10th, then this becomes troublesome.

By analogy, one may strictly follow the IRS code to avoid taxes, but the courts recognize that if a strategy is used for non-business reasons solely to reduce taxes, they'll disallow it because it runs counter to public policy. Government wants it both ways, ie, we can't violate either the letter or the spirit of the law, but gov will apply a more generous ad hoc standard to itself.

I don't disagree--no matter what, there will be conflict between states and the federal level, and need for adjustments. The question is, when will some group decide it's too much trouble to play the game according to the rules (and I see both "sides"...federals and states-rights) looking for ways to do this, which will either shatter the union or turn it from a republic into a dictatorship...and I see no reason to think the "conservative" dictators would be any different than the "liberal" ones.

In the meantime, I see the problem as being the political parties simply can't or won't ever say "No" to their interest-group supporters. The problem of faction (see the Federalist Papers #10) remains and has become the primary barrier to the proper balance and functioning of government at all levels, in my opinion. As long as we only have two factions to turn to, the Constitutional rules will be treated with a minimum of respect by either side, and used by both in a partisan manner. Even with a third or more parties, I see no guarantee for long-term survival of the Constitution and the Republic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Medical practitioners will want what they want.
But I don't want the law bending to their will in such a way that it could also favor any agenda.

It's not an agenda but those who work with, treat, and study gender dysphoria from every angle saying there is nothing wrong with them, and if anything is a problem its society's harsh attitudes towards them. It's not like transsexuals are known for robbing, hallucinating, stealing, or murdering, and there are no psychologists, therapists, psychiatrists, or researchers saying they need to be supervised, restrained, surveillance. The laws aren't being bent, and it's not some 'liberal/big government conspiracy" behind them urging this but rather what research-after-research has revealed.
Even as far left as I am, where pretty much everyone is Anarchist in regards to the state, the one thing I struggle with is that I don't even know how to get my own full rights under the law without government intervention. It took the Supreme Court saying homosexuals can get married in all 50 states, and had they not, we'd have been decades if not more than a century before all 50 states legalized. And it's clearly not an overreach of the government when they have the support of many other branches and the people who are directly and indirectly effected by the issue, and it also has scientific data behind it. It's not like it's a populist uprising being funded by corporate big-shots and endorsed by media superstars and snatching up enough power to jump start what appears to be a potential schism in the GOP.
And, as I thought had happened (but had to look through all the recent NC stuff), the Supreme Court itself has already ruled in favor in transsexuals in several cases, even ruling that discrimination against transsexuals falls under the ruling of Price Waterhouse vs Hokpins, that it is discrimination based upon gender expectations, and that it is protected under the Equal Protection Clause, and it even ruled that transsexual students should be able to use the restroom and facilities of their identified and presented sex.
So, where is this agenda? Where is this "big government?" Where is the overreach and boundaries being crossed?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't disagree--no matter what, there will be conflict between states and the federal level, and need for adjustments. The question is, when will some group decide it's too much trouble to play the game according to the rules (and I see both "sides"...federals and states-rights) looking for ways to do this, which will either shatter the union or turn it from a republic into a dictatorship...and I see no reason to think the "conservative" dictators would be any different than the "liberal" ones.

In the meantime, I see the problem as being the political parties simply can't or won't ever say "No" to their interest-group supporters. The problem of faction (see the Federalist Papers #10) remains and has become the primary barrier to the proper balance and functioning of government at all levels, in my opinion. As long as we only have two factions to turn to, the Constitutional rules will be treated with a minimum of respect by either side, and used by both in a partisan manner. Even with a third or more parties, I see no guarantee for long-term survival of the Constitution and the Republic.

Well.....aren't you Debby Downer!

 

[First Baseman]

I suspect that many who would grant government great & swift power to do
what is right, fail to consider that it will also use this power to do wrong.
My skepticism stems from the privilege of learnding some history.

(Yes, I meant "learnding".)

The Constitution was written for this purpose.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, where is this agenda? Where is this "big government?" Where is the overreach and boundaries being crossed?

There are many agendas which various people & groups pursue.
What I speak of is not the merit of the agendas, but of the governmental
system which would implement them.
The big government aspect here is the increasing power of the federal government.
They tax us, making less money available for local & state authorities, & then they
give it back to us with strings attached, eg, highway speed limits.
By this means, there is nothing they cannot control by holding our own money hostage.
The boundary being crossed is the 10th Amendment, which is effectively gutted.