Mike Lee Profile picture
Jan 17, 2024 1 tweets 1 min read Read on X
The Chevron doctrine—under which federal courts more-or-less blindly defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a law that the agency is charged with administering—certainly hurts “the little guy” and helps “the big guy,” as Justice Gorsuch suggested.

But it’s much worse than that.

Administrative lawmaking as a whole excludes the people from the process—all in the name of “letting the experts work out the details.”

Hardworking Americans can vote against lawmakers they don’t like.

But—unlike big corporations—they have no effective means at their disposal to influence federal agencies.

Consequently, voices of the rich and powerful are heard, while all others are silenced.

Congress needs to give the American people a seat at the table again by passing the REINS Act, which would require all “major rule” regulations to be passed into law by Congress before taking effect.

The REINS Act would include the American people in the lawmaking progress, and that’s something the Constitution already requires—albeit in ways that Congress and the courts have been ignoring for decades.

The REINS Act would fix that problem. It’s time to pass it.

#PassTheREINSAct

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mike Lee

Mike Lee Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BasedMikeLee

Jul 24
🧵 1. In a nutshell, here’s Elizabeth Warren’s logic on the SAVE America Act:

“Noncitizen voting is already illegal. We don’t need another law to deter noncitizen voting.”

What would happen if we applied that same logic elsewhere, starting with policies favored by Democrats?
2. Elizabeth Warren’s logic applied to gun-control laws:

“Gun violence is already illegal. We don’t need another law to deter gun violence.” Image
Image
Image
3. Elizabeth Warren’s logic applied to campaign-finance laws:

“Bribery is already illegal, we don’t need campaign-finance laws to deter official corruption.” Image
Read 10 tweets
Jul 15
🧵1. While states primarily administer elections, the Constitution’s Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4) authorizes Congress to “make or alter” regulations for the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections.

The SAVE America Act fits squarely within that authority.
2. Requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections is *not* overreach.

It’s necessary to ensure compliance with an existing federal law that prohibits noncitizens from voting for U.S. senators and representatives, but has become largely unenforceable.
3. States remain free—and will remain free after the SAVE America Act becomes law—to run their own state and local elections in whatever manner they might choose.
Read 5 tweets
Jun 19
Seven Simple Points Explaining How We Can Pass The SAVE America Act—And Save America!

(1) Bring the SAVE America Act back to the Senate floor next week, making clear that we will keep debating the bill until we pass it. Image
(2) Stay in session through weekends and (gasp) long-scheduled recess weeks, making clear that filibustering senators must stand, speak, and otherwise hold the floor—always with the understanding that if they drop the ball, we can “call the question” and pass the bill with the simple majority we already have.Image
(3) Even if the filibustering senators never drop the ball (that will NOT be an easy task for them if we keep up the pressure), they’ll start to experience political and physical exhaustion two or three weeks into this.

Many will begin thinking about face-saving amendments that could get them to “yes”—especially as it becomes clear to the American people that their arguments against the bill are not well founded.

This offers a potential pathway to 60 votes.Image
Read 7 tweets
Apr 19
🚨 🧵 1. Why the loss of trust in the media?

It might have something to do with the Supreme Court’s ruling in NY Times v. Sullivan (1964). Image
2. Before the Court’s ruling in NY Times v. Sullivan, if the media lied about a public figure and wrecked his or her reputation, he or she could sue for defamation, typically in state court under state defamation law—just like anyone else.
3. But then the Warren Court invented a brand-new “actual malice” rule out of thin air: now public figures have to prove the media either *knew* their story was false OR recklessly disregarded the truth.
Read 11 tweets
Mar 7
🧵1. Learning about the horrors of *Wickard v. Filburn* is a canon event for legal conservatives.

Ever since that case was decided in 1942, the U.S. government’s reach has been effectively limitless.

“Even wheat grown and consumed on a family farm is within Congress’s reach!” Image
2. No, ChatGPT didn’t hallucinate; that’s literally what SCOTUS said in *Wickard v. Filburn*: growing wheat on your own land for your own use can be regulated by the U.S. government because it affects “interstate commerce.”

New Deal judicial activism at its peak.
3. Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn grew extra wheat—a little more than federal regulators in Washington had “allowed” him to grow—to feed his animals and family.

But that wheat never entered interstate commerce.

In fact, it was never sold and never even left Filburn’s family farm in Montgomery County, Ohio (near Dayton).Image
Read 7 tweets
Jan 27
🚨🧵 1. It’s wrong that all spending bills go through just one committee in the Senate—the Committee on Appropriations

The House of Representatives does the same thing

This thread attempts to explain why this is a problem and what can be done about it
2. It’s unwise and even reckless to run all spending bills through a single committee for at least three independent reasons

First, it makes no sense from a workload-distribution standpoint
3. The staggering size, cost, and complexity of the federal government are such that no sane person would assign all of the workload associated with all spending bills to one committee

Responsibility for spending bills should be distributed broadly among all who have been elected to either chamber of Congress—not just to a select few who happen to serve on one committee
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(