If states can’t trust the federal government to disperse funds in a fair manner then the reason for being part of the union ceases to exist. Secession becomes a reasonable response.
> If states can’t trust the federal government to disperse funds in a fair manner then the reason for being part of the union ceases to exist
That’s an interesting idea. States have a lot of control over their banks. Just…sanction the federal government. It will get overturned by the courts. But New York, California and other net-payer states withholding payments would create a leverageable mess.
Have state bank regulators flag and freeze all payments to the Treasury for 30 days. (Ideally, during a window where your citizens won’t get hit with penalties, i.e. away from April or October 15 and away from the ends of calendar quarters.)
Secession is a pipe dream. No one is going to defy the US to do business with the Republic of Maine. Bigger states like New York or California might be able to go it alone, but being part of a global superpower and having access to its infrastructure and economy isn't something you just give up.
Ya, it’s actually required to be fair, but the Supreme Court is totally in Trump’s pocket so it doesn’t really matter how illegal his behavior is. A constitutional convention is highly likely in the next few years (our first since the 70s).
It doesn't make constitutional sense to me that congress passed laws to fund education ... but to be only dispersed if a later executive branch approves / doesn't have a personal gripe with them.
All these executive branch actions seem blatantly unconstitutional.
For instance, if a state's schools had decided to reintroduce segregation, obviously cutting off funding for them would be defensible as pursuant to executing civil rights laws.
The question is whether or not the President has the authority to rescind monies allocated by Congress and signed into law. It is dysfunctional for money allocated by Congress to be rescinded according to the whims of one person. The proper way to achieve his goal is to have Congress tie next year’s funding to how trans athletes are dealt with.
Assuming you’re asking in good faith, I’ll try to answer.
I have two core principles that motivate my beliefs about government policy regarding trans people. First, I don’t fucking care which bathroom you use. It’s none of my goddamn business. It’s especially not the government’s business and the threat of state violence over this is insane.
Second, human sexuality is not binary. That’s just an observable fact. Intersex people exist. There are undoubtedly people all over the spectrum in between.
Finally and most importantly we should respect people’s dignity and right to self-determination. If you want to present as a woman or man, that is your right to decide and not mine
I think that's fair that's your position, as that's how you feel towards those people and them going into the same bathroom as you despite being opposite sex.
But why is it right that that position then be extended to be binding on third parties, like families with little girls who don't want growth men in their private spaces where they're getting changed, or to their daughters who want fair competition in their chosen sports?
> families with little girls who don't want growth men in their private spaces where they're getting changed, or to their daughters who want fair competition in their chosen sports?
They…can go somewhere else? Like, there are religions in which a man can’t sit next to a woman on a plane. That’s sort of on them to deal with. Not society.
We have reams of studies on the mental health of Swedes and Japanese, on one hand, and religiously-conservative Americans, on the other hand. The parents of kids freaking out about seeing a penis aren’t on the stable end.
> worst of these is female prisoners being sexually assaulted, raped and even impregnated by male prisoners incarcerated in women's prisons
Hold on, the people passing bills criminalising abortions to the victims of rape and incest, sending prisoners to El Salvador and generally acting indifferently to rape of all kinds in our prison system are suddenly morally outraged about this rare category of rape?
The entire debate is motivated by creeps who can’t get their minds off other peoples’ bits and bedrooms. Let people make medical decisions with their doctors. And battle sexual violence in general, not just when it sets off the Carlsons’ multigenerational obsession with trans folk.
I believe you have been misinformed. In fact, there are a number of distinct groups of people who, for fundamentally different reasons, oppose policy derived from gender identity ideological beliefs.
In the case of policy that enabled incarcerated men to transfer to women's prisons, the opposition came first and foremost from radical feminist collectives, on the very clear principle of this being detrimental to women. Look at the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) in particular.
The Republican political machine only started to take a serious interest in this later on, when they realized this was an opportunity to attack the Democrats on unpopular and demonstrably harmful policy.
They need to get their bluff called. You have to stand up to this stuff.
If states can’t trust the federal government to disperse funds in a fair manner then the reason for being part of the union ceases to exist. Secession becomes a reasonable response.
> If states can’t trust the federal government to disperse funds in a fair manner then the reason for being part of the union ceases to exist
That’s an interesting idea. States have a lot of control over their banks. Just…sanction the federal government. It will get overturned by the courts. But New York, California and other net-payer states withholding payments would create a leverageable mess.
> But New York, California and other net-payer states withholding payments would create a leverageable mess.
How do you withhold payments, exactly? Do you tell the citizens of Maine to send their federal tax money to the state capital?
> How do you withhold payments, exactly?
Have state bank regulators flag and freeze all payments to the Treasury for 30 days. (Ideally, during a window where your citizens won’t get hit with penalties, i.e. away from April or October 15 and away from the ends of calendar quarters.)
> state bank regulators flag and freeze all payments to the Treasury for 30 days.
It's crazy that we're even floating ideas like this.
But something like this might actually happen.
Secession is a pipe dream. No one is going to defy the US to do business with the Republic of Maine. Bigger states like New York or California might be able to go it alone, but being part of a global superpower and having access to its infrastructure and economy isn't something you just give up.
The breakup of an empire is always a pipe dream until it occurs. The U.S. will not defy history and last forever. At some point it will fracture.
Ya, it’s actually required to be fair, but the Supreme Court is totally in Trump’s pocket so it doesn’t really matter how illegal his behavior is. A constitutional convention is highly likely in the next few years (our first since the 70s).
It doesn't make constitutional sense to me that congress passed laws to fund education ... but to be only dispersed if a later executive branch approves / doesn't have a personal gripe with them.
All these executive branch actions seem blatantly unconstitutional.
Only if they don't have a legal pretext for it.
For instance, if a state's schools had decided to reintroduce segregation, obviously cutting off funding for them would be defensible as pursuant to executing civil rights laws.
I’m not convinced cutting off all educational funding across a state is valid simply by executive branch decision… even if something unlawful occurs.
It would be under the "laws be faithfully executed" clause.
If one law can be used against another it's up to Congress to pass another law clarifying around that.
I don’t think that addresses the scale I’m referencing.
[flagged]
The question is whether or not the President has the authority to rescind monies allocated by Congress and signed into law. It is dysfunctional for money allocated by Congress to be rescinded according to the whims of one person. The proper way to achieve his goal is to have Congress tie next year’s funding to how trans athletes are dealt with.
Assuming you’re asking in good faith, I’ll try to answer.
I have two core principles that motivate my beliefs about government policy regarding trans people. First, I don’t fucking care which bathroom you use. It’s none of my goddamn business. It’s especially not the government’s business and the threat of state violence over this is insane.
Second, human sexuality is not binary. That’s just an observable fact. Intersex people exist. There are undoubtedly people all over the spectrum in between.
Finally and most importantly we should respect people’s dignity and right to self-determination. If you want to present as a woman or man, that is your right to decide and not mine
I think that's fair that's your position, as that's how you feel towards those people and them going into the same bathroom as you despite being opposite sex.
But why is it right that that position then be extended to be binding on third parties, like families with little girls who don't want growth men in their private spaces where they're getting changed, or to their daughters who want fair competition in their chosen sports?
> families with little girls who don't want growth men in their private spaces where they're getting changed, or to their daughters who want fair competition in their chosen sports?
They…can go somewhere else? Like, there are religions in which a man can’t sit next to a woman on a plane. That’s sort of on them to deal with. Not society.
I suppose that's the point - they were here first.
So it's the radicals who should go somewhere else, and leave normal, mentally healthy people be.
> leave normal, mentally healthy people be
We have reams of studies on the mental health of Swedes and Japanese, on one hand, and religiously-conservative Americans, on the other hand. The parents of kids freaking out about seeing a penis aren’t on the stable end.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> worst of these is female prisoners being sexually assaulted, raped and even impregnated by male prisoners incarcerated in women's prisons
Hold on, the people passing bills criminalising abortions to the victims of rape and incest, sending prisoners to El Salvador and generally acting indifferently to rape of all kinds in our prison system are suddenly morally outraged about this rare category of rape?
The entire debate is motivated by creeps who can’t get their minds off other peoples’ bits and bedrooms. Let people make medical decisions with their doctors. And battle sexual violence in general, not just when it sets off the Carlsons’ multigenerational obsession with trans folk.
I believe you have been misinformed. In fact, there are a number of distinct groups of people who, for fundamentally different reasons, oppose policy derived from gender identity ideological beliefs.
In the case of policy that enabled incarcerated men to transfer to women's prisons, the opposition came first and foremost from radical feminist collectives, on the very clear principle of this being detrimental to women. Look at the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) in particular.
The Republican political machine only started to take a serious interest in this later on, when they realized this was an opportunity to attack the Democrats on unpopular and demonstrably harmful policy.
[flagged]
It really isn’t the federal government’s jurisdiction to check gender for bathrooms, even considering Trump’s famous Hollywood Insider interview.