Meet The Moms Fighting the Government Over Their Children’s Bathroom Privacy

A group of North Carolina parents are joining forces to fight the Obama administration over its policy that forces public schools to allow transgender students into restrooms, showers, and locker rooms that are opposite from their biological sex.

“It’s not safe for my daughter,” Tammy Covil, a mother from Wilmington, N.C. told The Daily Signal.

The parents, part of a nonprofit called North Carolinians for Privacy, allege in a lawsuit filed May 10 against the Department of Justice and the Department of Education that the federal government is forcing them to choose between their children’s privacy and educational future.

Thank you for referencing that article milton23. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"… the federal government is forcing them to choose between their children’s privacy and educational future."

There is no real fight with the feds on this restroom policy issue imo. The problem imo, is that the presumably low-information parents can’t argue the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, powers which don’t include deciding policy for INTRAstate restrooms, because the parents have probably never been taught about those limited powers.

Regarding the threat of the Harvard Law School-indoctrinated, state sovereignty-ignoring USAG to withhold funding for public schools that refuse to comply with the federal government’s intrastate restroom policy, note that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate schooling purposes.

In fact, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified in broad terms that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially anything that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, deciding policy for intrastate schools not among those powers.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. ...” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

The misguided USAG also ignores that the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights evidenced by the 19th Amendment, that amendment giving the feds the power to strengthen that right.

But the fed’s polically correct restroom policy is clearly outside the scope of voting rights.

Again, not only have the states never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called LGBT “rights,” but the Founding States constitutionally prohibited the feds from establishing privileged / protected classes which the lawless Obama Administration is effectively trying to do with its vote-winning, pro-LGBT policies imo.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States [emphasis added]: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The parent’s “fight” with the feds is actually with corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification federal lawmakers who are wrongly letting other likewise corrupt federal officials get away with ignoring state sovereignty.

Remember in November !

When patriots elect Trump, they also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump, but will also put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes and federal interference in state affairs.

The states will then have more revenue to spend on public schools without federal interference.

Such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.