No products in the cart.


“We Will Fight This All The Way To The Supreme Court” – 11 States Sue Obama Over Transgender Bathrooms


This article comes from

When last week, Oklahoma threatened to impeach Obama over the administration’s recommendations on accommodating transgender students, saying the president overstepped his constitutional authority, few paid much attention. After all, it is safe to say there have been far more egregious violations of the constitution by this administration, for it to be too worried about allowing transsexuals to use any bathroom they choose.

However, now that ten other states joined Oklahoma overnight in suing Obama, it may be time to pay attention.

According to Reuters officials from 11 U.S. states sued the Obama administration on Wednesday to overturn a directive telling schools to let transgender students use bathrooms matching their gender identity, decrying the policy as “a massive social experiment.”

The 11 states’ lawsuit accused the administration of taking that argument too far and improperly, widening the scope of interpretation of civil rights law.

Ramping up the simmering battles over contentious cultural issues in America, the states, led by Texas and most with Republican governors, accused the federal government of rewriting laws by “administrative fiat.” Texas was joined by Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin, plus Arizona’s Department of Education and Maine’s governor.

11 States

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, would challenge the controversial order, which tells school district to allow transgender students to use the restroom of their choice. No other details were immediately available Wednesday about the number of states joining in on the suit. Abbott announced the litigation in a tweet.

How serious are the plaintiffs? Very: “We are willing to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to,” Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told reporters in Austin.

Amid a national debate on transgender rights, President Barack Obama’s administration on May 13 told U.S. public schools that transgender students must be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice, upsetting Republicans and paving the way for fights over federal funding and legal authority.

The states’ lawsuit accused the federal government of overstepping its constitutional powers by taking actions that should be left to Congress or individual states. It also challenged the Obama administration’s interpretation of federal civil rights law with regard to sex and gender.

The lawsuit said the administration “conspired to turn workplace and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights.”

According to Paxton “It’s about parents who are upset, grandparents who are upset. They want to see that the safety of their children is taken care of.”

On the other hand, transgender rights advocates argued it is transgender people who need protection, particularly transgender women who are disproportionately the victims of assaults and would be forced to use men’s bathrooms if states succeed in forcing people to use bathrooms matching their sex at birth. Likewise, transgender men, many of whom grow facial hair, would be required to use women’s bathrooms along with girls.

“This action puts students at risk for the sake of politics,” said Alison Gill of the Trans United Fund advocacy group supporting transgender rights. Gill said the states’ lawsuit did not reflect the position of most school boards and administrators.

Liberals were up in arms over the lawsuit: Paul Castillo, a lawyer with Lambda Legal, which supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights, said the lawsuit represented an “unprecedented attack against transgender people across the United States.” “These states are demonstrating the great lengths they will go to in order to discriminate against transgender individuals,” Castillo said.

Some could say that it is more ludicrous that the Supreme Court will be involved in an issue seen by many as an attempt by Obama to obtain even more liberal votes.

It is unclear how SCOTUS would respond if this issue is indeed taken that far. Peter Lake of Stetson University College of Law in Florida said the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of the meaning of “sex” under the law, but in recent years lower courts have been more likely to defer to the Obama administration’s broader definition.

“My sense is a certain momentum is building for broader protection of (LGBT) rights, and we might be seeing a moment of federal civil rights law in long-term transition,” Lake said.

On the other hand, if Trump wins the presidency and appoints a deeply conservative judge, we may not.

[ot-video type=”youtube” url=””]


Shorty Dawkins



  1. I suppose that this will work towards getting the lamestream media to pay attention, but it isn’t the way to handle this situation if you are looking to actually win.
    Suing the federal government, in federal court, with federal judges, is little more than a lesson in futility. It is also totally unnecessary.
    What these states should really be doing is simply telling this administration, that they have no intentions of following this directive, and that they understand that the penalty imposed by the administration will be to withhold federal money for education from the states.
    They should then inform Washington that this is understood, but that Washington should understand that these states will no longer feel obligated to send the tax money, that they have been sending to Washington D.C., to Washington D.C. any longer.
    Fair is fair.
    If Washington is going to impose these kinds of mandates, then the states will be far better off keeping their money in their states and running their educational by themselves, by their own standards.
    In fact, if this was used properly, it could go a long way toward getting the educational quality back up to a decent standard all over the country. (As I feel certain that once the rest of the states saw how much better the schools were being run in these states, along with how much more money would be at their disposal once it was retained by the states, the rest would soon follow suit.)
    The same goes for North Carolina, drop the federal law suites. Tell Washington to pound sand, and keep your money in your state. Suing the feds in their courts is folly, and unnecessary.
    This is the way to handle bullies. Don’t fight them on their own ground where they have all the advantages. Just say “Okay, you win, keep your money, just don’t expect this state to continue monetarily supporting your asinine policies.” “We’ll keep our taxes here within our state and you can keep your stupid political motivated nonsensical rules.”
    This is the way to do it according to the constitution.
    These ten states, as well as the rest of them, need to remember that they are the masters of the general, (federal), government, not the other way around.

    1. Oops.
      Sorry, I typed “ten” states when I should have typed eleven, twelve if you count North Carolina.
      I trust you got the message in spite of my typo.

    2. Strong Horse, what taxes do you mean for the States to keep? States do not collect income nor FICA taxes. State sales taxes and those with state income tax already keep that in the States.
      If the 16th Amendment had not been a progressive tax, though it was a direct tax, it could have been assigned per capita as a head tax based upon enumeration per the censis. It wasn’t handled that way, so the State doesn’t handle those funds.
      Anyone who disagrees feel free to enlighten me. I can and do make mistakes, too.

      1. Strong Horse, well said.

        Ivan, you bring up an important point. Might the states direct its citizens to send a portion of their returns to the state as an off-set to lost federal funding?

      2. Ivan, I could well be off base on the subject of money passing back and forth between the states and the general, (federal), government. In fact, it seems that I am.
        I willingly admit when I am wrong.
        It seems that for K-12 grades, the feds only supply approximately 10% of the funding. The majority of the money doled out to the states seems to be at the university level. Which is also what makes them so expensive.
        That does not change the facts that suing the feds in federal court is not only unnecessary, but also unlikely to meet with much success.
        It also doesn’t change the fact that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the state’s businesses. The feds have no jurisdiction over the school buildings, the privately owned businesses, or ANY buildings within a state, except federal buildings. Now if the federal government wants to mandate that all post offices comply, then so be it.
        All these states have to do is say “NO”.
        In fact, I suspect that the Attorney Generals of these states already know this. Heck, if an old ex-cop turned truck driver from Missouri can figure it out, these high dollar lawyers certainly can too.
        Which tells me that they have no expectation, nor intention, of prevailing in federal court. What this over hyped show is most likely about is so that these politicians can tell their constituents; “Oh, we tried, but those darned feds beat us in court, so I guess we will have to do what they say. But don’t be mad at us! We tried.” “Oh, and vote for me for governor in the next election, since I just showed you that I’m willing to fight for you.”
        It’s the same dog and pony show that all the senators and congressmen play out all the time. They delegate their constitutional authority, (unlawfully), to all of the 3 letter alphabet agencies so they don’t have to take the blame for the ramming they give us. Then if people do throw a fit, they haul some agency bastard in front of a congressional hearing and chew him out on C-Span so they can show what a good job they are doing in fighting for us. While the whole time the agency was doing what the congress critters wanted done all along.
        This is how they shirk their responsibilities and still take none of the blame.

      3. “All these states have to do is say “NO”.”

        If one wants to read, here is some information that backs Strong Horse up.

        St. George Tucker: “The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it – the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge of the extent of his own powers, without reference to his constituent?”

        Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

        “Justice Scalia, majority opinion on Mack and Printz v. United States (1997): “It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of “dual sovereignty”…. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty”…. Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones.

        Article 1, Section 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

        The Framers’ experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them that using the States as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal state conflict. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.

        The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.”…

        The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. As Madison expressed it: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” ….

        This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.”

        1) Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between the States and National Government, federalism “ ‘secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181.

        It enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that law enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458. Federalism’s limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals may challenge actions that transgress, e.g., separation-of-powers limitations, see, e.g., INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919. The claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State’s constitutional interests, even if those interests are also implicated. Pp. 8–12. Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) (end excerpt) Note the phrase, “…the diffusion of sovereign power”” (end quote –

        Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

        Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

        James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

        St John Tucker: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”

        Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States OR to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” (caps mine)

        Thomas Jefferson: “I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the federal government our foreign ones.”

      4. Aw, come on Cal — you’re slipping! 😉

        You forgot this one:

        Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., from his book, Three Rights —

        “For if The PEOPLE enjoy a right to form their own nation in the first place, they certainly possess a right to renew its vitality from time to time as the need arises.” – Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.

        Elias Alias, editor

      5. You’re correct, Elias.

        My apologies to Dr. Vieira. He has my utmost respect and I usually quote him everywhere.

  2. What? What is there to “fight”. Just man-up and say no. No need to go to the Supreme Morons.

    It’s the same old same old… we’ll show them we gots balls! We’ll take this to SCOTUS!

    And look where SCOTUS has brought to us.

  3. Ivan Berry….Every worker in every state has federal income taxes STOLEN from their paychecks every week…We simply need to stop allowing buisnesses in the states to send that money to the IRS and instead, send it to the state….No more money for the feds. Tell CLUB FED to pound sand by cutting off their cash. Every dime collected in every state Stays in that state until such time that the fedgove no longer exists and we the people can start anew with a constitutional government as intended.

  4. With the huge uprising in trans gender rapes we clearly need to keep them out. The only reason someone would go through the ridicule of being transgender is to get the opportunity to rape random women or men in restrooms, especially children. Oh wait, trans genders have been using their preferred restrooms for decades without any problems, except from presumptuous, ignorant, assholes trying to force their morality onto others.

Comments are closed.