forsyth

To answer the questions posed yesterday: "No, I cannot show where the President has the unilateral Constitutional authority to force a state to repeal an Act." And, "No, I would not support such authority."

However, US Presidents since Thomas Jefferson have used "impoundment" to not pay for things allocated by Congress. Though the authority to do so is not enshrined in our Constitution, there is a Federal Law that defines the procedures a President must follow in order to "impound" those funds. Sadly, I am not learned enough to speculate whether, in the matter under consideration, President Trump has followed those procedures. It certainly appears that any President can delay federal funds for at least 45 days while asking Congress to change its collective mind about the funding.

As with most things, our personal biases tend to color our reactions to and our feelings about Presidential Impoundment. I can't help but wonder whether we were supportive of or offended by President Biden's impoundment of funds allocated to build a border wall in 2021.

All three branches of our federal government have long and storied histories of overriding State law. In 1993 a threat to withhold federal highway funds forced North Carolina to change its legal blood alcohol concentration for driving from .10 to .08. In 2014 a US District Judge made same-sex marriage legal in North Carolina despite a NC Constitutional ban (that had been approved in an election by North Carolinians.) In 1974 the federal government forced states to adopt the 55 miles per hour speed limit and later, in 1995, decided that States could set their own speed limits. Those are just three examples that I remember, but I am certain they are not the only examples available.

My opinion on the matter is that the States are too dependent on the federal government. In my personal Utopia, Minnesota, North Carolina, and every other State would be able to pass and enforce laws that best reflected the ideals of its citizens. The federal government would concern itself with National Defense, international trade, treaties and the like. Since the world isn't likely to conform itself to my idea of Utopia, I am of the opinion that when a State takes federal money for projects (including building a road or operating a school) that State has to comply with federal rules. In today's political climate that means being ready to go from one extreme to the other every four years.

Democrats have feminized men and masculinized women until now there is not much difference. Conservatives still have ladies and men

Democrats refuse to define what a woman is......or they just don't know

Newsom reportedly said the individual biological female rights are not worth his time to protect.

Democrats are anti women and want men in all women's spaces

To get back to the title of this thread: It's absolutely true, how could anyone that doesn't grab their puzzles possibly be pro-woman?

I love the fact that every time Gentleman posts and backs up his statements with facts, Anti can't come back with anything and the thread just dies.

I am certain that our friend "antithesis" was not trying to convey the illusion that Minnesota's "Human Rights Act" addressed "gender identity" in 1973. The 1973 law actually allowed some schools to make decisions based on a student's sex. In 1993 Minnesota was the first state in the nation to pass a State law to prohibit discrimination based on one's "sexual orientation" but still neglected to include "gender identity." In the language of the day, the 1993 law made it illegal to discriminate against h*mosexual or bisexual people. It wasn't until 2023 that Minnesota's law makers decided to include "gender identity" as a "human right" that needed protecting.

Title IX of the US Code prohibits discrimination based on "sex" not "gender" (see 20 U.S. Code 1681.) Even the Minnesota State High School Leage (the governing body of Minnesota high school athletics) recognizes that there is a difference between "sex" and "gender" ( https://www.mshsl.org/sites...nglish.pdf). Since "sex" and "gender" apparently have different meanings, the question becomes how do we avoid "discrimination" of either class of people.

We accept all kinds of "discrimination" in school sponsored sports. We require students to maintain a certain academic standing (which "discriminates" against the "dumb" students.) We practice "age discrimination" when prohibit high school seniors from competing against 8th graders. We even "discriminate" against the less athletically gifted when we limit the rosters to X number of players. The courts have long and consistently held that these types of "discrimination" are allowed because participating in school sports is a "privilege" and not a "right." It is not "discrimination" to tell a biological male that he has to play sports on a "boys" team.

The argument can be made that allowing biological males to participate in female sports is a type of discrimination in violation of Title IX. As the examples "antithesis" provided us in an earlier post showed, a merely mediocre male athlete is able to excel when competing against similarly trained female athletes. On March 7, 2025 PBS News reported that even after two years of gender-affirming hormones "trans women" had higher scores in push-ups and sit-ups than did women assigned female at birth ( https://www.pbs.org/newshou...r-athletes)

While Minnesota has every right to make laws for Minnesota the Federal Government also has the right to withhold federal funding from projects that are deemed to be in violation of federal law. Title IX has not changed. Far from trying to force Minnesota to change the current law as written, President Trump has merely said that the Federal Government is not going to pay for programs that undermine current Federal Law. If Minnesota wants to continue to use Federal Funding it must adhere to Title IX Regulations and not force biological females who wish to participate in sports to compete against biological males.

In Minnesota men can change their biological gender on their birth certificate. Is that in the constitution? Y'all democrats are loony tunes

It's my topic and it's relevant

Anti is the feminist movement nowadays the same as a male mansplaining what it's like to be a woman? I'm sure you'll agree a man can throw a ball harder than a woman. Google AI does.

Why would a grown man sue the Trump administration to allow other biological males to participate in women's sports? This is creepy and anti-woman

Tell me you don't understand the problem, without telling me that you don't understand the problem...

Transgender High School Softball Pitcher Dominates As Battle Over Biological Men In Women's Sports Rages. He's a sophomore playing varsity and dominates

A portion of this post shoulda be removed for lying AND serial trolling:

As always, if you feel responsibility needs to be had, let me know when you leave mothers basement!

As stated before, only coward goons who cant cut it with men, like yourself, play women sports.

How was playing JV womens volleyball as a Senior?

This post shoulda be removed for irrelevant AND foolish serial trolling:

Hey shoulda, quit running away from taking responsibility for your vile behavior AND share your feelings with us regarding men in wimmin's sports.