In a broader sense, the suit is symbolic of the federal government’s eight-year crusade to decimate any semblance of federalism and streamline progressive morality. The administration ignores state laws that conflict with federal policy when it approves and it sues states when it does not. States that pass law enforcement bills President Obama finds unsatisfactory will see the full force of the Justice Department come down on them. Those with drug legalization laws and immigration laws he does like, even if they conflict with federal law, have nothing to worry about.
"Justice" in Obama's America
The Department of Same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
McCrory isn't helping this with his own position. He wants the Federal Congress to set the rule for all the States. Because he sees the States having the same relationship to the Federal government as counties have to their States: merely as districts to facilitate the purposes of domestic order and good government.
McCrory is right that the Feds are looking to impose this nationwide, and he's right that the States need to band together to fight this overreach. But at the end of the (successful) fight, each State must remain free to set its own solution IAW the requirements of its own citizens and without (much) regard for what any other State has decided to do.
Guess he's missed the 10th Amendment and the reasons for its existence.
Eric Hines
As the author says in the opening, it's possible not to care very much at all about the particular hill but to care a lot about the underlying principles of how and when power may be used.
You're right, though: it's another case where we don't really have a good guy on either side of the fight. We're being asked to decide which of two centrists/statists has a more aesthetically pleasing vision for how the Federal government will exercise its unified power.
That's becoming the norm in American politics. The thing I want to fight about isn't who can use what bathroom, but about whether or not the Federal government has the right to say.
Still, I'll support McCrory (which support and 4 bucks will get an adequate cup of coffee in a Starbucks) on his lawsuit. That's a suitable intermediate step toward shutting off the overreach and beginning to restore the 10th Amendment.
Eric Hines
I think the Federal v States on this question is a horse that has already left the barn. It seems to me that the Federal government has ALREADY said, via Title 7 and Title 9 (re: employment and education, respectively) that the status of various SPECIFIC classes of individuals is protected and may not be discriminated against.
However, Title 7 includes only race, color, religion, SEX and national origin (e.g., no LGBTxxx), and Title 9 relates only to discrimination in education on the basis of SEX (e.g., must have equal # of male/female athletes.)
SEX in the context of Titles 7 & 9 has traditionally (and until now, without question) been understood & interpreted as biologically male or female (I don't think it's ever been adjudicated.) Now, however, DOJ has unilaterally extended its interpretation of SEX in these two laws ro include transgender, without, apparently, regard to whether the trans-person has altered his/her physiological parts. Essentially, DOJ is conflating the heretofore different meanings of SEX and GENDER IDENTITY. The NC law was attempting to limit the transpeople to using restrooms that conformed to their [changed] physiological makeup, as documented by an updated birth certificate (which I've read they may request.) ...to avoid the implicit loophole granted to [primarily] men who want to diddle little girls or prey on women.
So long as the term SEX in the 2 laws lacks a limiting definition or the laws are amended to clarify the class, we will see this controversy taken up by liberal activists as the anti-traditional cause du jour.
In a radio interview this morning, I heard Gov. McCrory state quite plainly that his preference would be for the States to make relevant law, not the Feds. However, since the controversy arises in the context of Titles 7 & 9, it probably will have to be settled at the Federal / court level.
I am not an expert in this issue and if anyone finds error then please correct me.
I have taken great interest in this matter because of the [again] overweening impertinence of DOJ's actions. DOJ will not prosecute a Congressional contempt charge against Holder, and will not fully investigate Fast and Furious, and refuses to charge Hillary with violations of national security laws, and allows release of illegal immigrant felons, but it will bring spurious discrimination charges on the ridiculous basis of "disparate impact," and will sue a State over a public restroom law.
Discussion on Althouse this morning.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/05/can-law-written-in-heat-of-civil-rights.html
Post a Comment