Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[Ifreann]

Ooooh pleeease.

You can have your two cents back. Don't want 'em.

He is overstepping his authority. The adjudication of what happens to north Carolina belongs in the federal courte, not via executive action.

Is he actually overstepping his authority, though? Is there truly no authorisation in law for the executive branch to withhold funding from the states if they fail to abide by the executive's conditions?

[MFrost]

I love how this is framed. On the one hand, the federal government has no business interfering in local matters. On the other hand, the federal government is taking funds away from disabled students. Does the party of fiscal responsibility want the Obama administration to just hand over cash to the states, no strings attached, no questions asked?

---

It's an awful lot of effort to got to in order to accommodate bigots. And nothing of the sort was done when racial discrimination was ended, or when homosexuality was legalised. I doubt it's necessary.

I already mentioned a whole list of issues with doing that.

the issues you brought up are non issues. as a matter of fact some the beaches in California have already converted to single occupancy bathrooms. they must have gone thru your list and decided the benefits outweigh the issues you presented. I'm sure the city planners and engineers went thru a much more extensive list and risk assessment than what you presented. granted it was not done to deny transgenders an ability to use the woman's restroom. however safety issues were brought up in the sense of homeless people were using the restrooms to camp out in. There were other risks also along the lines of potential predators using these bathrooms to target victims. So the risk factors and benefits were all weighed in and the solution they came up with was single occupancy. the California beach cities are not alone in this analysis, and for most likely similar reason in fighting off the homeless other cities implemented similar plans.

So they found it to be a cost effective solution for the problem at hand. Why would a business or school not agree with this. for 10 billion in federal funding schools will want to keep parents happy while retaining their funding, single occupancy is a nice solution. keeps everything equal and satisfies the demands of the most phobic of parents. I know I would feel better if my daughters high school implemented this solution. it mitigates unknown and potential risks. i grant you it may never happen, but in the same breath would ask you are ready to guarantee this non-event with a million dollar bond? obviously if I have absolutely nothing to worry about then you have no problem putting money where your mouth is. You are the one after all who is claiming such an event cannot and/or will not occur. Exactly how sure of this are you?

[Greed and Death]

He is overstepping his authority. The adjudication of what happens to north Carolina belongs in the federal courte, not via executive action.

Except that these are funds supplied by the federal, and in particular a part of the executive branch. Also, if the state is not fulfilling it's end of the agreement on when it receives federal funds, why should it continue to receive federal funds?

AN example. The federal government supplies a certain amount of money to states because while they maintain a certain drinking age. Should one of the states decide hell with that we want a lower drinking age, why should they continue to receive those funds?

Its worth pointing out with schools there has been a tradition of states declining federal funding rather than complying with federal directives. The federal govnerment tends to back down when a large number of states decline to meet the conditions because tanking education in 1/3 to 1/2 the country hurts the country overall.

[Ethel mermania]

He is overstepping his authority. The adjudication of what happens to north Carolina belongs in the federal courte, not via executive action.

Except that these are funds supplied by the federal, and in particular a part of the executive branch. Also, if the state is not fulfilling it's end of the agreement on when it receives federal funds, why should it continue to receive federal funds?

AN example. The federal government supplies a certain amount of money to states because while they maintain a certain drinking age. Should one of the states decide hell with that we want a lower drinking age, why should they continue to receive those funds?

He does not have the statutory autbority to withhold the funds, that belongs to congress.

What the AG did was correct, she sued in federal court to compel the state to open the bathrooms. Then the court decides. If the courts finds for the feds, and the state does not follow through. He can send in the 101st airborne to enforce the court order. But until either congress or the courts act. He has no right to order the cutting off of funds.

Look at little rock in 1957 at how it is suppose to work

[Esternial]

Except that these are funds supplied by the federal, and in particular a part of the executive branch. Also, if the state is not fulfilling it's end of the agreement on when it receives federal funds, why should it continue to receive federal funds?

AN example. The federal government supplies a certain amount of money to states because while they maintain a certain drinking age. Should one of the states decide hell with that we want a lower drinking age, why should they continue to receive those funds?

Its worth pointing out with schools there has been a tradition of states declining federal funding rather than complying with federal directives. The federal govnerment tends to back down when a large number of states decline to meet the conditions because tanking education in 1/3 to 1/2 the country hurts the country overall.

Which essentially boils down to the states holding America's education hostage so they can do what they want, or am I wrong?

[Ifreann]

Its worth pointing out with schools there has been a tradition of states declining federal funding rather than complying with federal directives. The federal govnerment tends to back down when a large number of states decline to meet the conditions because tanking education in 1/3 to 1/2 the country hurts the country overall.

Which essentially boils down to the states holding America's education hostage so they can do what they want, or am I wrong?

Give us the funding or the next generation gets it!

[Neutraligon]

I already mentioned a whole list of issues with doing that.

the issues you brought up are non issues. as a matter of fact some the beaches in California have already converted to single occupancy bathrooms. they must have gone thru your list and decided the benefits outweigh the issues you presented. I'm sure the city planners and engineers went thru a much more extensive list and risk assessment than what you presented. granted it was not done to deny transgenders an ability to use the woman's restroom. however safety issues were brought up in the sense of homeless people were using the restrooms to camp out in. There were other risks also along the lines of potential predators using these bathrooms to target victims. So the risk factors and benefits were all weighed in and the solution they came up with was single occupancy. the California beach cities are not alone in this analysis, and for most likely similar reason in fighting off the homeless other cities implemented similar plans.

So they found it to be a cost effective solution for the problem at hand. Why would a business or school not agree with this. for 10 billion in federal funding schools will want to keep parents happy while retaining their funding, single occupancy is a nice solution. keeps everything equal and satisfies the demands of the most phobic of parents. I know I would feel better if my daughters high school implemented this solution. it mitigates unknown and potential risks. i grant you it may never happen, but in the same breath would ask you are ready to guarantee this non-event with a million dollar bond? obviously if I have absolutely nothing to worry about then you have no problem putting money where your mouth is. You are the one after all who is claiming such an event cannot and/or will not occur. Exactly how sure of this are you?

The beaches tend to have more space, then say an enclosed building. Bad comparison. Sure it is an effective way...except what you are suggesting is basically no different from what already exists. What you are suggesting is, anybody can use the sinks (man or woman) and all people sit around waiting for the restrooms in the same place (man or woman). When a room opens up they go in and do their business and then leave. Again How is this any different from what exists now, except now those sinks are normally enclosed now. What risks are you talking about. This is exactly the same as what already exists, except that both men and women wait in the same area for what you suggest while now they are have different waiting areas. It mitigates no risks, solves no problems, makes practically no changes, and all for money these schools could better spend elsewhere (like textbooks). What event cannot and will not occur? In all this time, trans people have already been using the restroom they identify with, and there has been no issue with this. So how certain am I that trans using the restroom they identify with is ok, I am 100% certain since we have already been doing so for a very long time.

[Greed and Death]

Its worth pointing out with schools there has been a tradition of states declining federal funding rather than complying with federal directives. The federal govnerment tends to back down when a large number of states decline to meet the conditions because tanking education in 1/3 to 1/2 the country hurts the country overall.

Which essentially boils down to the states holding America's education hostage so they can do what they want, or am I wrong?

There is not an American Education system. There are 50 state education systems and 4 federal systems.

The vast majority of federal funds goes through Block grants because previously the South and Midwest refused compliance with federal directives.

Several states are suggesting without federal funding special needs kids will be sent home to be their parent's problem as the money is too small to push congress to act at least until next budget.

[Neutraligon]

Except that these are funds supplied by the federal, and in particular a part of the executive branch. Also, if the state is not fulfilling it's end of the agreement on when it receives federal funds, why should it continue to receive federal funds?

AN example. The federal government supplies a certain amount of money to states because while they maintain a certain drinking age. Should one of the states decide hell with that we want a lower drinking age, why should they continue to receive those funds?

He does not have the statutory autbority to withhold the funds, that belongs to congress.

What the AG did was correct, she sued in federal court to compel the state to open the bathrooms. Then the court decides. If the courts finds for the feds, and the state does not follow through. He can send in the 101st airborne to enforce the court order. But until either congress or the courts act. He has no right to order the cutting off of funds.

Look at little rock in 1957 at how it is suppose to work

I believe he does have the authority. While Congress can appropriate funds to departments in general. I believe it is the department itself which decides how those funds are used. So that if a state is refusing to comply with a federal requirement for receiving funds, they can indeed withhold those funds. Just like they can withhold funds if a state decided to lower the drinking age.

[Ethel mermania]

He is overstepping his authority. The adjudication of what happens to north Carolina belongs in the federal courte, not via executive action.

Is he actually overstepping his authority, though? Is there truly no authorisation in law for the executive branch to withhold funding from the states if they fail to abide by the executive's conditions?

Congress or the courts has the authority. Usually a student in NC who was denied the right to use the bathroom would sue, as that is the person who has standing to sue (the aclu or other no would foot the bill for the lawyers). The federal court would make a decision and then the state would say evil feds and comply with the order, (and I am oversimplifying a bit as I am ignoring the appellate process, stay orders and whatnot).

If NC didn't comply, then the feds can compel the state to follow the court order. In 1957 in a desegregation case. The little Rock school system, backed by the state of Arkansas failed to comply a federal judeges desegregation order. Eisenhower sent in the 101 airborne division to enforce the order. Truly a great moment in American history. (I am being sincere)

Edit: for clarity.

[Ethel mermania]

He does not have the statutory autbority to withhold the funds, that belongs to congress.

What the AG did was correct, she sued in federal court to compel the state to open the bathrooms. Then the court decides. If the courts finds for the feds, and the state does not follow through. He can send in the 101st airborne to enforce the court order. But until either congress or the courts act. He has no right to order the cutting off of funds.

Look at little rock in 1957 at how it is suppose to work

I believe he does have the authority. While Congress can appropriate funds to departments in general. I believe it is the department itself which decides how those funds are used. So that if a state is refusing to comply with a federal requirement for receiving funds, they can indeed withhold those funds. Just like they can withhold funds if a state decided to lower the drinking age.

They can sue to compel.

[Neutraligon]

I believe he does have the authority. While Congress can appropriate funds to departments in general. I believe it is the department itself which decides how those funds are used. So that if a state is refusing to comply with a federal requirement for receiving funds, they can indeed withhold those funds. Just like they can withhold funds if a state decided to lower the drinking age.

They can sue to compel.

I believe that is what they are doing in North Carolina. And what they plan to do with any state that fails to meet this guidance.

[MightyQuinn]

Except that these are funds supplied by the federal, and in particular a part of the executive branch. Also, if the state is not fulfilling it's end of the agreement on when it receives federal funds, why should it continue to receive federal funds?

AN example. The federal government supplies a certain amount of money to states because while they maintain a certain drinking age. Should one of the states decide hell with that we want a lower drinking age, why should they continue to receive those funds?

He does not have the statutory autbority to withhold the funds, that belongs to congress.

What the AG did was correct, she sued in federal court to compel the state to open the bathrooms. Then the court decides. If the courts finds for the feds, and the state does not follow through. He can send in the 101st airborne to enforce the court order. But until either congress or the courts act. He has no right to order the cutting off of funds.

Look at little rock in 1957 at how it is suppose to work

So, what do you suppose will be the reaction if this does go to Federal Court, the Appellate court rules for the states and the SCOTUS is deadlocked?

I'm certain that there will be protests. Will there be a radical increase in trans-bashing?

And again, if this is such a great idea, why didn't the Obama Administration inaugurate this social experiment in the Armed Forces?

[Gauthier]

I don't know.....im thinking that sex acts still wont be OK in public schools 20 years from now.

Wait, were they talking about having sex in public schools? I was so lost on how beastiality had anything to do with the discussion.

A blatantly insulting account created one day ago throwing slippery slopes and strawmen like bestiality as defense of state-sanctioned discrimination being responded to by federal withdrawals of funds? I am shocked I tell you, shocked!

[Neutraligon]

He does not have the statutory autbority to withhold the funds, that belongs to congress.

What the AG did was correct, she sued in federal court to compel the state to open the bathrooms. Then the court decides. If the courts finds for the feds, and the state does not follow through. He can send in the 101st airborne to enforce the court order. But until either congress or the courts act. He has no right to order the cutting off of funds.

Look at little rock in 1957 at how it is suppose to work

So, what do you suppose will be the reaction if this does go to Federal Court, the Appellate court rules for the states and the SCOTUS is deadlocked?

I'm certain that there will be protests. Will there be a radical increase in trans-bashing?

And again, if this is such a great idea, why didn't the Obama Administration inaugurate this social experiment in the Armed Forces?

Simple, because the Armed Forces is never the place you originally do "Social experiments" I believe the Obama administration is working on or has already allowed trans individuals to be part of the Armed Forces.

Edit: yep, trans individuals were only recently allowed to serve openly. I am sure they can use the restroom of the gender they present as.

[The House of Petain]

I actually think it's a fairly clever move by the Obama administration.

Seems pretty standard, no?

No. I know Reagan did it with the drinking age, but as of late, I can't think of anything recent. I'm sure it has been done though.

[Greed and Death]

He does not have the statutory autbority to withhold the funds, that belongs to congress.

What the AG did was correct, she sued in federal court to compel the state to open the bathrooms. Then the court decides. If the courts finds for the feds, and the state does not follow through. He can send in the 101st airborne to enforce the court order. But until either congress or the courts act. He has no right to order the cutting off of funds.

Look at little rock in 1957 at how it is suppose to work

I believe he does have the authority. While Congress can appropriate funds to departments in general. I believe it is the department itself which decides how those funds are used. So that if a state is refusing to comply with a federal requirement for receiving funds, they can indeed withhold those funds. Just like they can withhold funds if a state decided to lower the drinking age.

Depends on the funding appropriation. Congress actually gives most education funds with little or no strings attached that's Why Obama targeted special ed funding because after the repeal of no child left behind there is very little federal control of state education funding.

[MFrost]

grandfathered in is up to the business owner, and that decision does not belong to you. If they are willing to spend the money then what is going to stop them? they are doing it specifically to negate the headaches this law represents. On one side their clients are demanding privacy and on the other the gov is mandating this privacy be removed. how do you satisfy both parties and walk away without any form of litigation or fines. They are in compliance with the law while still providing the privacy their clients are demanding. i do not really understand why it upset you so that a business may choose this option to solve the problem of satisfying demands from conflicting groups.

In an old building the existing plumbing is more or less guiding the retrofit. there is no need to be tearing the whole place apart. the stall walls are replaced with a frame and drywall , the front is replaced with a locking door. sinks are just a common area out in the open, you do not need an enclosed room to wrap around the single occupancy rooms. .

my estimates i used to work for a company that remodeled bathrooms and kitchens and also did floor coverings. toward the end we were doing commercial buildings and hotels using marble and granite counter tops.

Are you also saying a new business or building being built or designed cannot facilitate single occupancy?

Grandfathered in also applies to government buildings, meaning that the problem you were supposedly solving with your single-occupancy rooms is not being solved at all. I agree that if a business wishes to make all there rooms single stall that is up to them. regardless of if this law exists or not. If they wish to waste their money on a really stupid remodel, more power to them. It doesn't upset my that a business chooses to do this, the problem is that you suggested that the regulations change, and the regulation you suggested is not only stupid, it also creates problems in and of itself.

I see, so you are suggesting making it so that each toilet has it's own room while the sinks are just left in the open. How is this any different from what exists right now in the woman's room??? There are stalls in the women's room, which is pretty much exactly like the drywall rooms you are suggesting. How is what you are suggesting any different to what we currently have, only the sinks are out in the open instead of behind a closed door. Talk about useless regulation change. Those trans-people going to the restroom, your daughter and wife would be seeing an equal amount of time with them in what you suggest.

there is no sign on the door so the stall can be used by whoever gets there first.
the stall portion is completely enclosed and private not half walls like they are now.
there is no discovery or privacy breach, for women ,men and transgenders.
it's just an accessible toilet with nothing special about and it it does not belong to any sexual identity.
an open area for sinks makes them public, whereas in a women's room they are in an enclosed and private room.
as to amount of time spent with other people when she goes to the bathroom at the beach it is not some communal affair.
and when she steps out of the stall i can see her as she washes her hands.

as for gov building changes it is all about what taxpayers are willing to pay for and unless you are living in that state then you really do not have a vote on what they feel is right for their state, and or how they should spend state collected tax dollars, especially property taxes. as for federal buildings I can careless they can do whatever they like with those. perhaps the employees within those buildings are perfectly comfortable with this arrangement. the senators and house representatives must be ok with it since it appears this is something they wish to enforce upon the rest of the country. their call not mine. i rarely visit federal buildings anyway so it has no effect on me. If i visit a national park i will make sure to bring my own bathroom with me

[Neutraligon]

Grandfathered in also applies to government buildings, meaning that the problem you were supposedly solving with your single-occupancy rooms is not being solved at all. I agree that if a business wishes to make all there rooms single stall that is up to them. regardless of if this law exists or not. If they wish to waste their money on a really stupid remodel, more power to them. It doesn't upset my that a business chooses to do this, the problem is that you suggested that the regulations change, and the regulation you suggested is not only stupid, it also creates problems in and of itself.

I see, so you are suggesting making it so that each toilet has it's own room while the sinks are just left in the open. How is this any different from what exists right now in the woman's room??? There are stalls in the women's room, which is pretty much exactly like the drywall rooms you are suggesting. How is what you are suggesting any different to what we currently have, only the sinks are out in the open instead of behind a closed door. Talk about useless regulation change. Those trans-people going to the restroom, your daughter and wife would be seeing an equal amount of time with them in what you suggest.

there is no sign on the door so the stall can be used by whoever gets there first.
the stall portion is completely enclosed and private not half walls like they are now.
there is no discovery or privacy breach, for women ,men and transgenders.
it's just an accessible toilet with nothing special about and it it does not belong to any sexual identity.
an open area for sinks makes them public, whereas in a women's room they are in an enclosed and private room.
as to amount of time spent with other people when she goes to the bathroom at the beach it is not some communal affair.
and when she steps out of the stall i can see her as she washes her hands.

as for gov building changes it is all about what taxpayers are willing to pay for and unless you are living in that state then you really do not have a vote on what they feel is right for their state, and or how they should spend state collected tax dollars, especially property taxes. as for federal buildings I can careless they can do whatever they like with those. perhaps the employees within those buildings are perfectly comfortable with this arrangement. the senators and house representatives must be ok with it since it appears this is something they wish to enforce upon the rest of the country. their call not mine. i rarely visit federal buildings anyway so it has no effect on me. If i visit a national park i will make sure to bring my own bathroom with me

And half walls are not enough why? Anyone looking under those stalls is already committing a crime, regardless of gender (well they could just be checking to see if someone is in there). There is no privacy breach anyway. Correct, so again the only change you are suggesting that is of any significance is that th sinks are in the open where as before they were enclose in a single room. Oh, and you are of course getting rid or urinals, thus slowing the process down and taking up more space since urinals take up less space.

So once again, what is the point of what you are suggesting when there is practically no difference to how things are now? Except that what you suggest has men and women in the same waiting area, while leaving things as they are has men and women in separate waiting areas. Seriously talk about a solution in want of a problem. These schools have better things to do then to waste money here, like textbooks, computers, and paying their teachers (there are some states that cannot afford to pay for accredited teachers...).

[Ethel mermania]

They can sue to compel.

I believe that is what they are doing in North Carolina. And what they plan to do with any state that fails to meet this guidance.

Which is ok. Lynch can sue as the AG, to enforce federal law in NC. That is how the executive is suppose to assert it's authority to the states. I would prefer it came from a trans kid in North carolina, but the courts are the right place for this.

[Ethel mermania]

They can sue to compel.

I believe that is what they are doing in North Carolina. And what they plan to do with any state that fails to meet this guidance.

Which is ok. Lynch can sue as the AG, to enforce federal law in NC. That is how the executive is suppose to assert it's authority to the states. I would prefer it came from a trans kid in North carolina, but the courts are the right place for this.

[Jetan]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/some-embrace-obama-administration%e2%80%99s-transgender-directive-others-vow-to-fight/ar-BBt1gSS?ocid=spartandhp

So, President Obama is willing to throw disadvantaged and disabled kids under “under the bus”, by cutting off Federal education dollars, for the sake of anti-sexual-segregation of school restrooms.

Personally, I find the notion of holding disadvantaged and disabled kids hostage to a social experiment downright despicable. I’m sure that there are probably enthusiastic supporters on the other side of the issue, however I also find it cowardly.

You surely have noticed that the Commander-In-Chief didn’t send this new proclamation to the U.S. Armed Forces, didn’t you? He doesn’t have the clout to make such a change to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) in the time that he remains President and likely couldn’t get it through Congress. Once again, he’s acting like an Emperor and not a President.

But that’s just my two cents.

Government says don't discriminate. Some schools say, but we want to! Government says fair enough, no money for you.

Don't follow the rules, don't get the benefits. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Greed and Death]

He does not have the statutory autbority to withhold the funds, that belongs to congress.

What the AG did was correct, she sued in federal court to compel the state to open the bathrooms. Then the court decides. If the courts finds for the feds, and the state does not follow through. He can send in the 101st airborne to enforce the court order. But until either congress or the courts act. He has no right to order the cutting off of funds.

Look at little rock in 1957 at how it is suppose to work

So, what do you suppose will be the reaction if this does go to Federal Court, the Appellate court rules for the states and the SCOTUS is deadlocked?

I'm certain that there will be protests. Will there be a radical increase in trans-bashing?

And again, if this is such a great idea, why didn't the Obama Administration inaugurate this social experiment in the Armed Forces?

The funding issue might be won by the states. Long term I see Trans access to the bathroom as a inevitable rule from the court.

[Ifreann]

Is he actually overstepping his authority, though? Is there truly no authorisation in law for the executive branch to withhold funding from the states if they fail to abide by the executive's conditions?

Congress or the courts has the authority. Usually a student in NC who was denied the right to use the bathroom would sue, as that is the person who has standing to sue (the aclu or other no would foot the bill for the lawyers). The federal court would make a decision and then the state would say evil feds and comply with the order, (and I am oversimplifying a bit as I am ignoring the appellate process).

If NC didn't comply, then the feds can complete the state to follow the court order. In 1957 in order to desegregate The little Rock school system , when they failed to comply a federal judeges desegregation Eisenhower sent in the 101 airborne division to enforce the order. Truly a great moment in American history. (I am being sincere).

I understand that if someone sued it would go through the courts, and that Congress sets the budget for federal education funding, but does the executive branch really have no discretion at all in the distribution of those funds? If funding is given on conditions XYZ, and a state fails to meet those conditions, do the feds have to just carry on giving them those funds and then sue to get them back? I would have thought it would be the opposite, that if the DOE or whoever determined that a state was not meeting the requirements for receiving funds that they could cut off the funds, and if the state in question had a problem with that they could sue.

[Greed and Death]

Congress or the courts has the authority. Usually a student in NC who was denied the right to use the bathroom would sue, as that is the person who has standing to sue (the aclu or other no would foot the bill for the lawyers). The federal court would make a decision and then the state would say evil feds and comply with the order, (and I am oversimplifying a bit as I am ignoring the appellate process).

If NC didn't comply, then the feds can complete the state to follow the court order. In 1957 in order to desegregate The little Rock school system , when they failed to comply a federal judeges desegregation Eisenhower sent in the 101 airborne division to enforce the order. Truly a great moment in American history. (I am being sincere).

I understand that if someone sued it would go through the courts, and that Congress sets the budget for federal education funding, but does the executive branch really have no discretion at all in the distribution of those funds? If funding is given on conditions XYZ, and a state fails to meet those conditions, do the feds have to just carry on giving them those funds and then sue to get them back? I would have thought it would be the opposite, that if the DOE or whoever determined that a state was not meeting the requirements for receiving funds that they could cut off the funds, and if the state in question had a problem with that they could sue.

Depends on the wording of the budget item. Most education funding the President has no say in. Special Ed funding the President gets to determine some conditions. Generally there are some limitations and the President may be taking a strained definition of disable special needs kid to make this decision.

Congress can always amend the budget next year to override the President as it is unlikely the president will veto the entire budget over bathroom use by trans kids.