Paso school board member Kenney Enney defends boycotting class over trans policies
The simple answer is no, primarily because they are not behind the proposed grassroots school boycott. But to play along, let's say that boycotting schools is breaking the law.
Opinion
Civil disobedience has been a time-honored tradition in our republic since its founding, whether it was the Sons of Liberty tossing tea into Boston Harbor or civil rights marchers fighting against segregationists by sitting at 'whites only' lunch counters. Whether it's refusing to sit in the back of the bus or boycotting schools, breaking the law for what is good, right and true is sometimes necessary.
Leftists usually celebrate boycotts and sickouts. I don't recall any objections in San Luis Obispo County about breaking the law when left-wing teachers organized sickouts to oppose immigration policies or spending cuts. Why is it that H. K. Davie and leftists are now so concerned about a sickout in support of protecting girls' rights under Title IX?
I don't recall any outrage over the fact that California has openly violated federal immigration laws for almost 10 years. Yet when parents and students protest the fact that their civil rights are being violated, the left is suddenly concerned?
Article VI clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.'
When state law and federal law are in conflict, federal law is supreme. California laws allowing boys in girls' spaces or permitting boys to compete in girls' sporting events is in conflict with federal law (Title IX) and President Trumps' executive order regarding the protection of girls' private spaces and sports.
California laws allowing school officials to lie to parents regarding the health and welfare of their children is a violation of parents' rights under Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that officials in Sacramento and school districts in San Luis Obispo County refuse to abide by their oaths of office and protect the civil rights of those girls attending the public schools of this county has created this situation.
Brave young ladies like Celeste Duyst at Arroyo Grande High School are speaking out and 70% of Californians polled agree that Celeste's rights and the rights of tens of thousands of girls throughout the state are being violated. If leftists are concerned about violating the law, then I recommend they contact their school board trustees and demand that they abide by President Trump's Executive Orders and all aspects of Title IX.
Kenney Enney, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps, represents trustee area 7 on the Paso Robles school board.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American
When President Donald Trump first declared a crime emergency in the nation's capital and sent hundreds of federal law enforcement agents to patrol its streets, this district resident had a hard time taking it too seriously. The initial images of bored Drug Enforcement Administration agents strolling past perplexed joggers on the National Mall were more clownish than carceral. Local street resistance to the occupation was limited to a drunk guy throwing a sandwich at a federal agent. But inevitably, as this operation has dragged on, things have taken a darker turn. The sandwich-thrower was overcharged and rearrested in a needless, publicized show of force. Masked federal agents have set up an unconstitutional checkpoint, violently arrested at least one delivery driver, and filmed themselves tearing down a banner protesting their presence in the city. Each day, more and more National Guard members pour into the capital. The conversation about Trump's declared crime emergency has understandably, albeit unhelpfully, provoked a lot of discourse about how safe D.C. is, whether a federalized local police department will make it safer, whether federal agents are being deployed in the right places and going after the right crimes, and on and on. This incessant crime conversation has distracted from just how un-American Trump's show of force in the nation's capital is. Uniformed troops and masked federal agents doing routine law enforcement at the command of the president is just not how we do things in the United States. The entire point of the U.S. Constitution is to prevent the federal government from becoming a despotism, and one of the primary ways it does this is by limiting how many men with guns it has at its disposal. This is why the Constitution places strict constraints on maintaining a standing army. It's why there are only three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, none of which would plausibly require federal agents to patrol U Street. It's why questions of what to criminalize and who to prosecute were largely left up to the states. The Third Amendment is mostly treated as an anachronistic joke today. In fact, it is a load-bearing part of the Constitution that makes clear that the military and the police are different things and that Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of armed agents of the states as a routine part of daily life. Obviously we've deviated considerably from this ideal since the founding generation. The federal criminal code is now extensive. The feds' wars on drugs, terror, and immigration have grown the number of militarized federal agents doing law enforcement activities. Federal money has subsidized a similar trend of militarization of state and local police forces. Reason has been decrying this trend for decades. In his book Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko writes about how the trend of increased police militarization has eroded the "Symbolic Third Amendment" and the free society it protects. It's darkly ironic then that, after decades of politicians of both parties in D.C. gifting the federal government vast powers to police the rest of the country, a militarized federal police force is now being deployed on the streets of America's capital against its residents. This is why arguments about whether federal agents could be more effectively deployed in less visible, higher crime areas of the city are completely beside the point. The federal government acting as a beat cop is inimical to our constitutional design, regardless of how effective its efforts are. That D.C. is a federal district might seem to complicate this point. In fact, it reinforces it. Despite being a constitutionally peculiar special district, a lot of effort has been put into giving D.C. a local police force that does not practically function as an arm of the federal government. Even in the seat of federal power, it's understood that a force of federal agents policing everyday life is not something ordinary citizens should have to put up with. That Trump has the power to federalize the D.C. police or deploy the D.C. National Guard doesn't stop his actions from being authoritarian and offensive to the spirit of the Constitution, even if it doesn't violate the letter of it. It's also cold comfort that Trump's declared crime emergency is clearly mostly a performative act to rile up the libs and not a serious effort at combating crime. While the president is staging the performance, it's disconcerting that he's opted to cast himself as the villain in the play. Moreover, the longer federal agents are deployed on D.C. streets, the greater the odds that more serious abuses do happen. It's true that D.C. today is not as locked down as it has been in recent years. The police-enforced curfews during the George Floyd protests or the security cordons that sprang up after the January 6 riots were a lot more visible and heavy-handed. Excessive as those police actions were (particularly the latter), they were at least being done as an emergency response to widespread breakdowns in public order. Trump is rolling out the feds in D.C. to do routine law enforcement. That's un-American. The post Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Amy Coney Barrett Offers Some Advice to Judges
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett offered advice to judges and others in the legal community during an address at the Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference on Monday night. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office for comment via email. Why It Matters Barrett has emerged as a swing vote on the nation's highest court. Although she was appointed by President Donald Trump, she has at times shown a willingness to break from the court's conservative majority. Americans' confidence in the judiciary has fallen in recent years, according to Gallup, which in December 2024 found that only 35 percent of Americans have confidence in the judicial system and courts. The pollster's latest survey on Supreme Court approval yielded similar skepticism from Americans, with only 39 percent approving of the High Court. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Washington on October 21, 2020. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Washington on October 21, 2020. Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images What To Know Barrett addressed hundreds of judges and other legal professionals during a brief address at the conference in Chicago. She urged courts to maintain a sense of "camaraderie and professionalism," Fox News reported. She acknowledged that there are disagreements in the legal field, Bloomberg reported. "Law is a profession that, unlike some others, operates continually under the strain of disagreement," she said, according to Bloomberg. "Doctors cooperate and coordinate to deal with patients. Engineers work together to build a bridge. But litigants and their lawyers are pitted against one another on opposite sides." While this may sound "bleak," it allows attorneys too learn how to argue "without letting it consume relationships," she said. "I'm grateful to the way our bar conducts itself in that regard, because that is what enables the judicial system to work well, that collegiality," she said. During the most recent Supreme Court term, Barrett sided with liberal justices on some issues, including a key deportation case in which she opposed the Trump administration's use of wartime legislation to deport civilians, or a case in which she rejected efforts to freeze foreign aid funding. She has also given the Trump administration wins, including in her ruling on a major birthright citizenship case. What People Are Saying Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in May, per NBC News: "In our judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president. And that innovation doesn't work judiciary is not independent. Its job is to, obviously, decide cases but, in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive, and that does require a degree of independence." Gallup, in December 2024: "Few countries and territories have seen larger percentage-point drops in confidence in the judiciary [over a similar four-year span] than the U.S. These include Myanmar [from 2018 to 2022] overlapping the return to military rule in 2021, Venezuela [2012-2016] amid deep economic and political turmoil, and Syria [2009-2013] in the runup to and early years of civil war, and others that have experienced their own kinds of disorder in the past two decades." What Happens Next Supreme Court terms begin on the first Monday of October. This year, it's October 6.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump administration could attack state laws it says stifle US economy
The Trump administration is hunting for state laws that drag down the US economy. But axing statutes it sees as problematic will depend on how it wields the Constitution's powerful Commerce Clause. Last Friday, the Justice Department and the National Economic Council announced a joint initiative to "address" state statutes that "significantly and adversely affect the national economy.' State regulations, policies, causes of action, and practices were also included as targets. The plan is meant to support the White House's deregulation agenda, which President Trump described in a series of separate executive orders issued in January, February, and April. Those orders emphasize the administration's goal of alleviating policies that it views as "unnecessary burdens" on Americans, small businesses, private enterprise, and entrepreneurship. In an unusual twist, the agencies also solicited help from US citizens, asking members of the public to point out economy-slowing state laws and to propose legal theories that could reverse the laws' adverse effects. "They're crowdsourcing their legal theories," said Emily Berman, a constitutional scholar with the University of Houston Law Center. However, the plan stopped short of explaining what theories the administration would rely on to undo suspected harmful state laws. Jeremy Rovinsky, a federal prosecutor who teaches constitutional law at Crestpoint University, said the language used in the DOJ's plan to attack state laws shows that the Trump administration has the Commerce Clause in mind. "It's clear that Trump's lawyers are thinking through it this way," Rovinsky said. "The Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to regulate state power in an almost unlimited way." But the Commerce Clause doesn't guarantee the administration power to alter state law. The provision vests power to regulate commerce in Congress, not in the executive branch. A more straightforward type of challenge, the lawyer said, is one where state law directly conflicts with federal statutes. In those cases, the Justice Department could raise preemption challenges under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Preemption challenges argue that a state rule essentially steps on the federal government's toes, Berman said. The Commerce Clause Absent such a clear-cut conflict, the administration would need more legal leverage to countermand state law. That leverage could come from the Commerce Clause, the constitutional scholar said, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. "Anything that regulates commerce falls within the scope of Congress's authority, which has been interpreted relatively broadly," Berman said. To tap into the federal government's authority over commerce, the administration would need to persuade lawmakers to pass new federal legislation invalidating state law. Ravinsky said he sees the DOJ's announcement as an opening salvo to persuade members of Congress. "I think the people that are in [Trump's] inner legal circle wrote that document the way they did, because they want to give Congress a heads up to have them codify what he's doing with executive actions into actual congressional legislation," Ravinsky said. Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve School of Law, said it's possible, but not certain, that pressure on Congress from either President Trump or others in the executive branch would lead to new, preemptive federal laws. "If the president says this is a big priority, then maybe a fair number of people in both the House and the Senate would go along with it," Entin said. "Now, whether there will be enough votes, that's a separate question," he added. "Congress does not legislate very much." "If Congress wants to move legislation against state laws that they say hurt the economy, they need 60 votes in the Senate," Entin said. "And the chances of getting 60 votes in the Senate for much of anything these days are pretty slim." The Supreme Court has largely upheld Congress' power over interstate commerce in a series of cases evaluating the Commerce Clause stretching back more than 80 years. In 1942, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Wickard v. Filburn that expanded the federal government's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. The case involved an Ohio farmer who grew more wheat than permitted under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The court rejected the farmer's argument that the federal government could not regulate his excess wheat supply under the act because it was grown for personal, rather than commercial, use. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the court reasoned that while a single farmer's excess crop may not substantially impact interstate commerce, the same actions, if taken in the aggregate by multiple farmers, could indeed influence the national market. Despite the Supreme Court's longstanding support for expansive application of the Commerce Clause, Entin suspects that even new federal legislation could fail to preempt certain state laws. States still retain their police powers, he said, and can exercise those powers as long as doing so doesn't interfere with interstate commerce. "It's not clear to me that Congress can use its commerce power to preempt the state's exercise of their police powers, even if state laws may, in fact, be unwise or even foolish," Entin said. The 'dormant' Commerce Clause Still another, and equally uncertain, path to challenge state laws could involve a judge-created theory known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause," the lawyers said. The concept further expands Congress' power over interstate and foreign commerce by limiting states' authority to regulate commerce even when Congress has not directly legislated on an issue. The theory is intended to prevent states from adopting discriminatory, protectionist laws that benefit local economies to the detriment of the national market. The theory was put to the test and shown to have limits in a recent case decided by the Supreme Court. In 2023, the court loosely upheld a California state law known as Proposition 12, which criminalized California sales of pork meat that came from pigs housed in pens measuring less than 24 square feet — 10 square feet larger than the industry standard. The Iowa Pork Producers Association and 23 states argued that the law discriminated against out-of-state pork producers, imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce. However, Berman said, Dormant Commerce Clause challenges to state rules have historically been brought by private litigants, not the federal government. "It's going to be a private business sector actor saying, 'Our business is being harmed ... we shouldn't have barriers to markets along state lines." Entin agreed that it would be unusual for the federal government to sue states over their regulations. Alternatively, he said, Congress could try to persuade states to change laws through conditional federal spending. The administration may not find support from the high court for pushing Congress' authority over commerce even further, Entin added. Conservatives on the court in recent years have expressed "real skepticism" about whether courts should be in the business of enforcing the Commerce Clause, he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
