Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[Linux and the X]

I love the false dichotomy the OP presents in which it is either the disabled students or the gays. Why can't people just support both groups instead of allowing biased OPs to fool them into pitting different groups of people against each other?

Well that just wouldn't be fun, would it?

[Ifreann]

Funny. People get outraged because they think the Obama Administration isn't enforcing immigration law. Then people get outraged because the Obama Administration is enforcing civil rights law.

You swear some people just hate anyone who isn't like them and wants the government to act on that.

Why does...

Whether Obama is enforcing immigration laws is irrelevant to my point. But you'd know that if you'd actually read my post and thought about it for a moment instead of seeing the words "enforcing immigration" and jerking your knees furiously at the keyboard.

---

I like that you said, "new terms". It just proves that this is a decree after the legislation was enacted. Imperial Totalitarianism at it's finest.

OK, now I'm confused. What point are you even trying to make any more?

I'm pretty sure he's just making any anti-Obama comment he thinks fits the post he's quoting.

[Gauthier]

OK, now I'm confused. What point are you even trying to make any more?

I'm pretty sure he's just making any anti-Obama comment he thinks fits the post he's quoting.

Lusty comparisons against Putin in 3... 2... 1...

[Wallenburg]

I love the false dichotomy the OP presents in which it is either the disabled students or the gays. Why can't people just support both groups instead of allowing biased OPs to fool them into pitting different groups of people against each other?

(gay!=transgender)

[Omnipotent Celestial Republic]

Obama is not totalitarian, as he has not yet assumed power as judge, jury, jailer, and executioner; rather he is authoritarian, for he has clearly deemed fundamental rights as being inferior to, in this case, the privileges of people who want clearance for opposite biological-sex bathrooms. The transgender community, which I believe is legitimate, still cannot have (a) right(s) that transcend the rights of the majority. Even though I am a laissez-faire capitalist, assisting those who have not succeeded yet (the disabled) is more pressing than assisting those who have succeeded, but believe that they can alter the plaque on a bathroom door.

I suffer from periodic depression; due to this phenomenon, am I permitted to leave the classroom. In doing that, I am exercising what is either a right or a privilege in some jurisdictions, but the difference is depression is potentially deleterious to my state-of-being, while trying to effect tumultuous legal changes or simply panic due to one's inability to use the preferred bathroom is quite laughable in concept, and lamentable in practice. Disabled/atypical people with depression, anxiety, which I have; mental retardation, Asperger's/high-functioning autism, which I have; personality disorders, Down syndrome etc. rarely protest against the stigma that encapsulates them, alienating them from society. Whereas the LGBT community, while normally nonviolent, has had people assaulted Christians at parades due to differing opinions.
The most detestable aspect of this whole situation is that POTUS who allegedly stands up for the unfortunate (socially, because one can have severe anxiety and be in the top 1%) has in this incident forsook the people who actually require aid in school. Alleging that being given bathroom "rights" take precedence over special needs/disability is similar to alleging that my claim to $100 at Christmas is more important than a family living in squalor having clean water when they are reviled and poor and I have a $15000 Rolex. It is in essence saying that a fundamental right to a chance in the job market can be transcended and downtrodden by bathroom privileges.
If he took action properly, Obama could have instead delegated the fundraising to LGBT nonprofit organizations or companies, instead of taxpayers. The issue, besides being ethical, is also fiscal. The concept of these two-gender bathrooms does not agitate me, as I try to be forgiving Christian, but the method by which it is done is the culprit that should induce wrath. The bathroom privileges are not constitutional rights, but that does not mean they should be outlawed. This idea should be explored further, but not at the expense of special needs students.
If I receive responses, I will attempt to answer them in the morning before school, as it is past eleven in my time zone.

[The Black Forrest]

for he has clearly deemed fundamental rights as being inferior to, in this case, the privileges of people who want clearance for opposite biological-sex bathrooms. The transgender community, which I believe is legitimate, still cannot have (a) right(s) that transcend the rights of the majority.

Hmmm. You are right. Blacks don't have a right to transcend the rights of the majority.

It's interesting to hear "Christians" screaming about being oppressed because they can't treat people like crap.

those who have not succeeded yet (the disabled) is more pressing than assisting those who have succeeded, but believe that they can alter the plaque on a bathroom door.

Indeed. Crappy law by Christians started this mess.

I suffer from periodic depression; due to this phenomenon, am I permitted to leave the classroom. In doing that, I am exercising what is either a right or a privilege in some jurisdictions, but the difference is depression is potentially deleterious to my state-of-being, while trying to effect tumultuous legal changes or simply panic due to one's inability to use the preferred bathroom is quite laughable in concept,

It's laughable you compare the two.

and lamentable in practice. Disabled/atypical people with depression, anxiety, which I have; mental retardation, Asperger's/high-functioning autism, which I have; personality disorders, Down syndrome etc. rarely protest against the stigma that encapsulates them, alienating them from society.

It's interesting you link these groups with LGBT.

Whereas the LGBT community, while normally nonviolent, has had people assaulted Christians at parades due to differing opinions.

You are not seriously suggesting the poor wittle christians are being picked on are you? We once had a problem with fag bashing where groups of good Christian men set out to kick the crap out of gay people. The horrible laws and corrupt police are oppressing Christians by cracking down on them eh?

The most detestable aspect of this whole situation is that POTUS who allegedly stands up for the unfortunate (socially, because one can have severe anxiety and be in the top 1%) has in this incident forsook the people who actually require aid in school. Alleging that being given bathroom "rights" take precedence over special needs/disability is similar to alleging that my claim to $100 at Christmas is more important than a family living in squalor having clean water when they are reviled and poor and I have a $15000 Rolex. It is in essence saying that a fundamental right to a chance in the job market can be transcended and downtrodden by bathroom privileges.
If he took action properly, Obama could have instead delegated the fundraising to LGBT nonprofit organizations or companies, instead of taxpayers. The issue, besides being ethical, is also fiscal. The concept of these two-gender bathrooms does not agitate me, as I try to be forgiving Christian, but the method by which it is done is the culprit that should induce wrath. The bathroom privileges are not constitutional rights, but that does not mean they should be outlawed. This idea should be explored further, but not at the expense of special needs students.
If I receive responses, I will attempt to answer them in the morning before school, as it is past eleven in my time zone.

Obama acted within his rights and I support it. If the NC governor hadn't of signed a complete bullshit of a law; Obama wouldn't have gotten involved.

Here is something to ponder. You probably have shared a public restroom with a transgender.

[Libertine States of America]

Obama is not totalitarian, as he has not yet assumed power as judge, jury, jailer, and executioner; rather he is authoritarian, for he has clearly deemed fundamental rights as being inferior to, in this case, the privileges of people who want clearance for opposite biological-sex bathrooms. The transgender community, which I believe is legitimate, still cannot have (a) right(s) that transcend the rights of the majority. Even though I am a laissez-faire capitalist, assisting those who have not succeeded yet (the disabled) is more pressing than assisting those who have succeeded, but believe that they can alter the plaque on a bathroom door.

I suffer from periodic depression; due to this phenomenon, am I permitted to leave the classroom. In doing that, I am exercising what is either a right or a privilege in some jurisdictions, but the difference is depression is potentially deleterious to my state-of-being, while trying to effect tumultuous legal changes or simply panic due to one's inability to use the preferred bathroom is quite laughable in concept, and lamentable in practice. Disabled/atypical people with depression, anxiety, which I have; mental retardation, Asperger's/high-functioning autism, which I have; personality disorders, Down syndrome etc. rarely protest against the stigma that encapsulates them, alienating them from society. Whereas the LGBT community, while normally nonviolent, has had people assaulted Christians at parades due to differing opinions.
The most detestable aspect of this whole situation is that POTUS who allegedly stands up for the unfortunate (socially, because one can have severe anxiety and be in the top 1%) has in this incident forsook the people who actually require aid in school. Alleging that being given bathroom "rights" take precedence over special needs/disability is similar to alleging that my claim to $100 at Christmas is more important than a family living in squalor having clean water when they are reviled and poor and I have a $15000 Rolex. It is in essence saying that a fundamental right to a chance in the job market can be transcended and downtrodden by bathroom privileges.
If he took action properly, Obama could have instead delegated the fundraising to LGBT nonprofit organizations or companies, instead of taxpayers. The issue, besides being ethical, is also fiscal. The concept of these two-gender bathrooms does not agitate me, as I try to be forgiving Christian, but the method by which it is done is the culprit that should induce wrath. The bathroom privileges are not constitutional rights, but that does not mean they should be outlawed. This idea should be explored further, but not at the expense of special needs students.
If I receive responses, I will attempt to answer them in the morning before school, as it is past eleven in my time zone.

I think it's pretty obvious why disabled people (Aspbergers/Autistic people in particular) don't protest about discrimination: Because their disability wires them not to engage people in public, which includes protests.

[Noraika]

--snip---

Look, I'm going to be blunt, and I'm getting darn tired of saying it, since its been said almost ad infinitum at this point, but it is North Carolina which violated the laws which governed their ability to receive federal funds, by violating pre-existing regulations in Title XI of the ED Regulations, as well as violating the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. North Carolina decided that it would make a problem where there was none before, with HB 2, by trying to force transgender individuals to use the restrooms opposite of their gender identity. North Carolina is the reason the funds, which they are not entitled to, are no longer being received, because their actions rendered the contract they had with the federal government, to receive those benefits, null and void knowingly by their own actions. They are responsible for this situation, and it is unreasonable to suggest otherwise, or push blame elsewhere.

This was done by the government of North Carolina, on an imagined idea that allowing transgender individuals to use the facilities befitting their gender identity, which they have already been doing for decades, is a threat to 'bathroom safety'. This is despite the fact that scores of local and regional governments, states, and even countries, have all allowed transgender individuals to use the facilities befitting their gender identity, for some for well over a decade already, and they have found this perceived threat to be unfounded. Yet with rhetoric which is surprisingly similar to an argument for racial segregation, if you simply swap out a few words here and there, the government of North Carolina, and groups which accept their line of thinking, not only continue to make faulty claims, and fear-monger about their imagined threats and dangers, but also victimize themselves despite their own wrong-doings.

[Linux and the X]

Obama is not totalitarian, as he has not yet assumed power as judge, jury, jailer, and executioner; rather he is authoritarian, for he has clearly deemed fundamental rights as being inferior to, in this case, the privileges of people who want clearance for opposite biological-sex bathrooms. The transgender community, which I believe is legitimate, still cannot have (a) right(s) that transcend the rights of the majority. Even though I am a laissez-faire capitalist, assisting those who have not succeeded yet (the disabled) is more pressing than assisting those who have succeeded, but believe that they can alter the plaque on a bathroom door.

I suffer from periodic depression; due to this phenomenon, am I permitted to leave the classroom. In doing that, I am exercising what is either a right or a privilege in some jurisdictions, but the difference is depression is potentially deleterious to my state-of-being, while trying to effect tumultuous legal changes or simply panic due to one's inability to use the preferred bathroom is quite laughable in concept, and lamentable in practice. Disabled/atypical people with depression, anxiety, which I have; mental retardation, Asperger's/high-functioning autism, which I have; personality disorders, Down syndrome etc. rarely protest against the stigma that encapsulates them, alienating them from society. Whereas the LGBT community, while normally nonviolent, has had people assaulted Christians at parades due to differing opinions.
The most detestable aspect of this whole situation is that POTUS who allegedly stands up for the unfortunate (socially, because one can have severe anxiety and be in the top 1%) has in this incident forsook the people who actually require aid in school. Alleging that being given bathroom "rights" take precedence over special needs/disability is similar to alleging that my claim to $100 at Christmas is more important than a family living in squalor having clean water when they are reviled and poor and I have a $15000 Rolex. It is in essence saying that a fundamental right to a chance in the job market can be transcended and downtrodden by bathroom privileges.
If he took action properly, Obama could have instead delegated the fundraising to LGBT nonprofit organizations or companies, instead of taxpayers. The issue, besides being ethical, is also fiscal. The concept of these two-gender bathrooms does not agitate me, as I try to be forgiving Christian, but the method by which it is done is the culprit that should induce wrath. The bathroom privileges are not constitutional rights, but that does not mean they should be outlawed. This idea should be explored further, but not at the expense of special needs students.
If I receive responses, I will attempt to answer them in the morning before school, as it is past eleven in my time zone.

I think it's pretty obvious why disabled people (Aspbergers/Autistic people in particular) don't protest about discrimination: Because their disability wires them not to engage people in public, which includes protests.

It's even simpler than that, actually: yes we fucking do.

[MFrost]

multiple states are now in line to lose their federal funding for passing laws contrary to federal laws. States are now reviewing their pro-marijuana and sanctuary city laws, along with their gun ban laws. State are trying to determine the amount of impact this will have should Trump become president and uses similar enforcement efforts to deny federal money to their states until laws are changed back to federal standards.

As has been argued Federal law trumps state law.
Withholding federal funds from states is a legitimate method to enforce compliance.
It is not the federal government's and / or the White House's fault the funds are withheld but the state's fault for being out of compliance with federal law.
Selective enforcement of federal laws and withholding of federal funds is at the discretion of the POTUS and whatever agenda he or she may wish to promote during to their tenure in office.

just making sure we have the ground rules correct, so if and when a future president enforces a law of their choice contrary to your own beliefs you can review the above and understand how they have the right to do so. i.e. what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

so are the arguments above still valid if used to enforce federal laws against states that have passed laws like medical marijuana, or sanctuary cities, or gun bans in cities? there are probably other federal laws being broken but those just pop out as issues that people would applaud states for being progressive enough to defy current federal laws over. However if federal law trumps state law, they do run a risk of sorts. it could be funds withheld for law enforcement or medical benefits or perhaps transportation or small business loans. I'm pretty sure they can get creative with the law as the precedent here seems to be holding quite well.

[Linux and the X]

multiple states are now in line to lose their federal funding for passing laws contrary to federal laws. States are now reviewing their pro-marijuana and sanctuary city laws, along with their gun ban laws. State are trying to determine the amount of impact this will have should Trump become president and uses similar enforcement efforts to deny federal money to their states until laws are changed back to federal standards.

Please cite statutory authority for withholding funds in those cases, then we can talk about whether it's a good idea.

[MFrost]

multiple states are now in line to lose their federal funding for passing laws contrary to federal laws. States are now reviewing their pro-marijuana and sanctuary city laws, along with their gun ban laws. State are trying to determine the amount of impact this will have should Trump become president and uses similar enforcement efforts to deny federal money to their states until laws are changed back to federal standards.

Please cite statutory authority for withholding funds in those cases, then we can talk about whether it's a good idea.

i suppose we can start with grants where marijuana laws can be interpreted as a conflict of interest

https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/grants

[MFrost]

we can then thru really strange set of logic remove funding for school safety programs for any community deciding the 2nd amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms.

https://www.dhs.gov/school-safety

after all the community per the law no longer has guns and the schools are all safe, why pay for gun safety education measures where guns are non-existent.

[MFrost]

as for number 3 the immigration issue, it looks like the letter more or less has already been sent out,

so it is probably just one executive order away from being enforced...???

Notice to SCAAP Applicants:
Applicants for SCAAP funds are required to certify compliance with all applicable Federal laws at the time of application. In that regard, Members of Congress have asked the Department of Justice to examine whether jurisdictions with “sanctuary policies” (i.e., policies that either prevent law enforcement from releasing persons without lawful immigration status into Federal custody for deportation, or that prevent state or local law enforcement from sharing certain information with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials) are in violation of 8 U.S.C section 1373. For that reason, all applicants should understand that if OJP receives information that indicates that an applicant may be in violation of 8 U.S.C. section 1373 (or any other applicable federal law) that applicant may be referred to the DOJ Office of Inspector General for investigation; if the applicant is found to be in violation of an applicable federal law by the OIG, the applicant may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, in addition to relevant OJP programmatic penalties, including cancellation of payments, return of funds, participation in the program during the period of ineligibility, or suspension and debarment.

https://www.bja.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program_ID=86

[Linux and the X]

-snip three posts-

In all that, you've provided one statutory citation, which does not provide for withholding funds.

[MFrost]

-snip three posts-

In all that, you've provided one statutory citation, which does not provide for withholding funds.

on reading the one you seem to accept i see the following line which appears to provide not only for witholding funds but a clause to have funds already received returned.

in addition to relevant OJP programmatic penalties, including cancellation of payments, return of funds, participation in the program during the period of ineligibility, or suspension and debarment.

[The Rich Port]

The law's not in compliance with federal law.

If there's anybody you wanna blame, it's the local government... For dabbling in social experiments.

[MFrost]

as for the other two these are grant programs not guaranteed funding thru a law passed in congress. they are run by federal agencies which can be instructed thru an executive order to withold or deny the grant money to states that are out of compliance with federal law. there are guidelines regarding conflict of interest which can be leveraged to make it stick. As in why would the federal government provide grant money for the "Drug-Free Communities Support Program" to states that are ignoring federal drug laws?

States with marijuana laws are actively enabling drug trafficking and are out of compliance with federal drug laws, and are disqualified in receiving further Grant money for the program above. The state communities in question are no longer drug free per federal standards and the state is actively enabling this non-drug free environment.

Grants are issued at the discretion of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which can be ordered by the President to withhold funding until such time as marijuana laws in the states are brought back into compliance with federal standards. Obama thru his use of EOs and interpretation of his authority to withhold funding has made it clear the executive branch has this authority. The Executive orders apply to federal employees, who must follow them.

At least until such time as the supreme court decides such EOs are illegal.

[MFrost]

The law's not in compliance with federal law.

If there's anybody you wanna blame, it's the local government... For dabbling in social experiments.

precisely just like marijuana laws, sanctuary city ordinances, and gun ban laws which all ignore federal law to some extent, also run the risk of similar action to have state and local funding withheld.

the next president does not have to be rational, logical or give two rats ass pennies about what the people in those states think is fair or unfair, nor does he have to look at how the voters voted for the law or their desires to have their law stand. All he needs to do is point out how it is in conflict with the interests of the Federal government and laws passed by the federal government, followed by instructions to a source of funding to the state which is controlled by a federal agency wherein this funding can be withheld or denied.

[The Rich Port]

The law's not in compliance with federal law.

If there's anybody you wanna blame, it's the local government... For dabbling in social experiments.

precisely just like marijuana laws, sanctuary city ordinances, and gun ban laws which all ignore federal law to some extent, which run the risk of similar action to have state and local funding withheld.

the next president does not have to be rational, logical or give two rats ass pennies about what the people in those states think is fair or unfair, nor does he have to look at how the voters voted for the law or their desires to have their law stand. All he needs to do is point out how it is in conflict with the interests of the Federal government and laws passed by the federal government, followed by instructions to a source of funding to the state which is controlled by a federal agency wherein this funding can be withheld or denied.

Except none of those are contradicting federal law.

States have the power to regulate substances, immigration, and weapons as they see fit, or not, which is why some states have open carry and hidden carry laws, or neither, or one or the other, some necessitating a permit and some not.

They don't have the power to discriminate, thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Alvecia]

Don't Federally mandated stuff require that you not discriminate based on sex, gender, race, all that kinda stuff?
So really this is just par for the course. Don't follow the Federal rules, don't get the Federal funds.

[MFrost]

precisely just like marijuana laws, sanctuary city ordinances, and gun ban laws which all ignore federal law to some extent, which run the risk of similar action to have state and local funding withheld.

the next president does not have to be rational, logical or give two rats ass pennies about what the people in those states think is fair or unfair, nor does he have to look at how the voters voted for the law or their desires to have their law stand. All he needs to do is point out how it is in conflict with the interests of the Federal government and laws passed by the federal government, followed by instructions to a source of funding to the state which is controlled by a federal agency wherein this funding can be withheld or denied.

Except none of those are contradicting federal law.

States have the power to regulate substances, immigration, and weapons as they see fit, or not, which is why some states have open carry and hidden carry laws, or neither, or one or the other, some necessitating a permit and some not.

They don't have the power to discriminate, thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

actually they are in conflict with federal law, as cited above for the immigration law -- are in violation of 8 U.S.C section 1373.
for marijuana it is explicitly understood the 40 or so states that have passed these laws are not complying with -- Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811)
--- http://www.safeaccessnow.org/federal_marijuana_law
Congress has until December 31, 2016 to pass the CARERS Act. <<-- however this applies to Medical marijuana not recreational use.

as for guns then you must be standing behind the law in Kansas which states:
“It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States…to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.”

or is it a two way street wherein Kansas in this case needs to succumb to Federal authority because hey it does not fit the gun free America agenda, but if a gun ban such as the one overthrown by the supreme court were to pass then the state has the right to keep it and the fed has no authority?
http://thehill.com/regulation/other/213 ... andgun-law

[The Rich Port]

Except none of those are contradicting federal law.

States have the power to regulate substances, immigration, and weapons as they see fit, or not, which is why some states have open carry and hidden carry laws, or neither, or one or the other, some necessitating a permit and some not.

They don't have the power to discriminate, thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

actually they are in conflict with federal law, as cited above for the immigration law -- are in violation of 8 U.S.C section 1373.
for marijuana it is explicitly understood the 40 or so states that have passed these laws are not complying with -- Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811)
--- http://www.safeaccessnow.org/federal_marijuana_law
Congress has until December 31, 2016 to pass the CARERS Act. <<-- however this applies to Medical marijuana not recreational use.

as for guns then you must be standing behind the law in Kansas which states:
“It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States…to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.”

or is it a two way street wherein Kansas in this case needs to succumb to Federal authority because hey it does not fit the gun free America agenda, but if a gun ban such as the one overthrown by the supreme court were to pass then the state has the right to keep it and the fed has no authority?
http://thehill.com/regulation/other/213 ... andgun-law

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-back-c ... or-states/

The DOJ disagrees with you on the marijuana.

As any state-rights advocate will tell you, the states have some lee-way in the way they run themselves.

The power of a law isn't inherent in the law itself, it's in whether the law is enforceable, and whether anybody wants to enforce the law.

Sanctuary cities are technically legal because the states simply don't accept funds from the federal government in order to prosecute immigration crimes. If the issue isn't under federal jurisdiction (which local crimes often are not), the federal government has no right to intervene.

It is only when it becomes a federal issue (involving more than one state) that the feds can intervene.

There's a huge difference, also, between a law enforcing fucking bathroom segregation and a law enforcing important things like controlled substances and immigration.

In my opinion, the latter laws are all violations of state rights in the name of a hypocritical conservative federal agenda. However, the bathroom law is a ridiculous example of local tyranny.

And I say that as a federalist who is usually all for the states being taught a lesson.

[MFrost]

actually they are in conflict with federal law, as cited above for the immigration law -- are in violation of 8 U.S.C section 1373.
for marijuana it is explicitly understood the 40 or so states that have passed these laws are not complying with -- Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811)
--- http://www.safeaccessnow.org/federal_marijuana_law
Congress has until December 31, 2016 to pass the CARERS Act. <<-- however this applies to Medical marijuana not recreational use.

as for guns then you must be standing behind the law in Kansas which states:
“It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States…to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.”

or is it a two way street wherein Kansas in this case needs to succumb to Federal authority because hey it does not fit the gun free America agenda, but if a gun ban such as the one overthrown by the supreme court were to pass then the state has the right to keep it and the fed has no authority?
http://thehill.com/regulation/other/213 ... andgun-law

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-back-c ... or-states/

The DOJ disagrees with you on the marijuana.

As any state-rights advocate will tell you, the states have some lee-way in the way they run themselves.

The power of a law isn't inherent in the law itself, it's in whether the law is enforceable, and whether anybody wants to enforce the law.

Sanctuary cities are technically legal because the states simply don't accept funds from the federal government in order to prosecute immigration crimes. If the issue isn't under federal jurisdiction (which local crimes often are not), the federal government has no right to intervene.

It is only when it becomes a federal issue (involving more than one state) that the feds can intervene.

There's a huge difference, also, between a law enforcing fucking bathroom segregation and a law enforcing important things like controlled substances and immigration.

In my opinion, the latter laws are all violations of state rights in the name of a hypocritical conservative federal agenda. However, the bathroom law is a ridiculous example of local tyranny.

And I say that as a federalist who is usually all for the states being taught a lesson.

based on your article it looks like it is undetermined ...

"The outcome of the lawsuit rests on America's highest court."

so it looks like it still needs to be decided by the supreme court, considering it is recreational use and not medical marijuana you have a good chance that the court upholds the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811) and that in this instance the state of Colorado has a responsibility to its neighboring states to stop any cross border trafficking of a Schedule 1 substance. We just do not know yet. In the meantime a president could throw their weight on the issue and declare what Colorado has done Unconstitutional and request appropriate funds withheld. It does not have to be a popular decision by the president it just has to be whatever flavor of the day he deems appropriate in irking his party's opposition. then just sit back and watch them scramble for answers and laugh at their name calling and puny attempts to make it look like he is blackmailing the state to get his way. if you break a federal law no funding for you, at his personal discretion of which laws he wishes to uphold and fit his own personal agenda.

[MFrost]

Obama is not totalitarian, as he has not yet assumed power as judge, jury, jailer, and executioner; rather he is authoritarian, for he has clearly deemed fundamental rights as being inferior to, in this case, the privileges of people who want clearance for opposite biological-sex bathrooms. The transgender community, which I believe is legitimate, still cannot have (a) right(s) that transcend the rights of the majority. Even though I am a laissez-faire capitalist, assisting those who have not succeeded yet (the disabled) is more pressing than assisting those who have succeeded, but believe that they can alter the plaque on a bathroom door.

I suffer from periodic depression; due to this phenomenon, am I permitted to leave the classroom. In doing that, I am exercising what is either a right or a privilege in some jurisdictions, but the difference is depression is potentially deleterious to my state-of-being, while trying to effect tumultuous legal changes or simply panic due to one's inability to use the preferred bathroom is quite laughable in concept, and lamentable in practice. Disabled/atypical people with depression, anxiety, which I have; mental retardation, Asperger's/high-functioning autism, which I have; personality disorders, Down syndrome etc. rarely protest against the stigma that encapsulates them, alienating them from society. Whereas the LGBT community, while normally nonviolent, has had people assaulted Christians at parades due to differing opinions.
The most detestable aspect of this whole situation is that POTUS who allegedly stands up for the unfortunate (socially, because one can have severe anxiety and be in the top 1%) has in this incident forsook the people who actually require aid in school. Alleging that being given bathroom "rights" take precedence over special needs/disability is similar to alleging that my claim to $100 at Christmas is more important than a family living in squalor having clean water when they are reviled and poor and I have a $15000 Rolex. It is in essence saying that a fundamental right to a chance in the job market can be transcended and downtrodden by bathroom privileges.
If he took action properly, Obama could have instead delegated the fundraising to LGBT nonprofit organizations or companies, instead of taxpayers. The issue, besides being ethical, is also fiscal. The concept of these two-gender bathrooms does not agitate me, as I try to be forgiving Christian, but the method by which it is done is the culprit that should induce wrath. The bathroom privileges are not constitutional rights, but that does not mean they should be outlawed. This idea should be explored further, but not at the expense of special needs students.
If I receive responses, I will attempt to answer them in the morning before school, as it is past eleven in my time zone.

as stated elsewhere transgender people have used the bathroom of their choice for many many years, without incidence and without a fuss. All this does is bring the issue to the forefront, and turn it into a truly sad state of affairs debate. it demonstrates the stupidity of both parties in trying to regulate something which should technically have been left alone. States have passed the transgender laws with literally no opposition, NC and handful of other states have in there opinion passed a law to deny this to the Transgendered community, and are being sued. Now we could slice hairs wherein NC takes it further and defines the term Transgender as any person born with both male and female genitalia are exempt from this law and are free to identify as they see fit. Any other person is considered TransSexual and not TransGender. In distinguishing the two they may be able to make the case of we recognize the rights of those who by birth were put in such a position of having to decide. However for those who are Transexual unless a complete reassignment procedure or treatment for such has begun they need to remain within societal constraints. Society is a set of rules which allow people to live with each other in a civilized manner it is a contract of sorts. Disruptive influences to a society while welcome at times need to be measured for what they are. is it being disruptive for a cause which will make the society a better place or are those calling for the change at a disadvantage thru no fault of their own. Are there methods thru infrastructure, design, engineering, or city planning that remove the conflict? Can it be solved with minimal disruption to the society at large? if as a leader you can answer yes to these questions then you technically should show either why it would be cost prohibitive to pursue a non-disruptive solution or show why the disruption would cause more harm then good. anyway my two cents.

personally i do not feel NC has shown either the cost prohibition behind an infrastructure change or how a disruption in the societal norm would cause more harm then good. However the administrations approach to solving this is not only dangerous, but stupid in my opinion. as it opens the door for much more frivolous uses of an executive order thru the executive branch to shape, and change state laws as whatever sitting president sees fit. It can be used to make a party's opposition look ridiculous in fighting for their state rights and laws the voters deemed appropriate, or simply to forward an agenda a party knows is unpopular with their opposition. There are so many federal laws and federal agencies to cherry pick from a sitting president can have a field day irking those who disagree with his policies. It is not all that hard to replicate the path being taken here, and it does not have to follow expectations or the previous administration's agenda, and it can be to the detriment of any citizen in the country.