CIVX

Law and politics in plain English.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

@SaltyGoat17 OK I get it now. It's satire.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

@elonmusk What nonsense.

None of this would "end democracy"... even if true.

1) Minorities are not bad people, they're just different.

2) Different opinions are not wrong.

3) The ruling elite want to convince you they are more like you then minorities.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

Do not be surprised when President Trump challenges the integrity of the midterm elections if democrats are voted into control of Congress.

He's already laid the seeds for this. Remember his big announcement and white house website alleging voter fraud?

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

@TrumpDailyPosts Some other religions are also high in the ranks there….

Monarchies and dictatorships may also top the list.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

@TrumpDailyPosts Sounds similar to when you could only vote if you had land.

Or similar to when you could only vote if you passed a literacy test.

Both of these had racist origins.

What could go wrong when those with all the money and the power have the only say with the law?

Not good.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

Executive overreach is the concern with Trump.

Trump was elected as our President; not our dictator. He doesn’t get to dictate the law.

Presidents, as the head of the executive branch, execute the laws legislated by the legislative branch, Congress, and by the framers of the Constitution.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

@SteveLovesAmmo For property taxes, doesn’t the property and its owners benefit from the services being funded with those taxes?

What of the property owners don’t pay income taxes and don’t pay property taxes? Who funds the upkeep of the streets, garbage, schools, police, fireman, etc.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

@SteveLovesAmmo When would someone be forced to pay a tax or lose their home? The U.S. has a progressive tax model.

The more you make the more you pay. It’s capped at 37%, which applies when you make over $640,600.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

The biggest failure of the United States’s is its failure to properly educate its people. This is especially true in regard to its failure to educate its people on how their government works, the ideals of that system, and why it’s set up that way.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

When people are ignorant of the system, they fall prey to politicians’ appeals to emotion.

The most dangerous is when politicians pick a minority group to blame for everything thats going wrong with society.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

Does President Trump want to leave us alone to live our own lives how we want?

The Republican Party likes to think it is the party of freedom while simultaneously thinking everyone should practice the same religion and should not be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

@SaltyGoat17 Civics: 101-2

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

Statutes are laws; regulations are rules.

Both are binding.

Congress writes the law; bureaucrats issue regulations, executing the law.

Bureaucrats work in agencies which are part of the executive branch, like the President.

Regulations issued by bureaucrats are only valid if Congress has written a law allowing the agency that the bureaucrat works in to issue those regulations.

If the agency issues a regulation that exceeds the authority granted to it by Congress, then that regulation could be challenged in court and a judge should declare it invalid.

This is how the code of federal regulations works.

It all starts with Congress, our representatives.

This conversation is analogous to President Trump doing things and the question being whether Congress has passed a law allowing him to do it. It’s all a question of has the executive branch exceeded its authority granted to it by Congress. Judges will decide this.

Civics 101

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

@Milajoy These are suddenly back in the news. They must’ve disappeared when Trump became president and then reappeared a couple months before midterms.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

@glasshousessss Great lawyer.

What were the continuous lies.

What an odd thing to bring up in a conversation about executive overreach and judicial review.

Turning to these types of insults usually means the person is intellectually limited.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

Of laws, not men. 🇺🇸

Judges can tell the President what he can and can’t do because the United States is a government of laws, not men, and judges say what the law is.

“The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. . . . [And] [i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163, 177 (1803).

This principle is what’s referred to as “judicial review.”

The point of judicial review is to prevent tyranny by limiting the President’s power via judges being the ultimate arbiters of what the law says.

How does giving the judiciary the final say on what the law means limit presidential power? Because the President, as head of the executive branch, is only allowed to do what the constitution and federal statutes passed under it allow him to do. This includes the President not being allowed to infringe on the people’s constitutional rights, such as their first amendment rights.

What’s been going on lately is President Trump keeps getting sued for doing things the plaintiff(s) claim he’s not allowed to do. Some examples include claims that Trump is: (i) not allowed to tear down the East Wing of the White House to build his ballroom, like he’s done; and (ii) not allowed to ban CNN from his press conferences, like he’s done.

Once President Trump has been sued, he then justifies his actions by pointing to some provision of the constitution or some federal statute, claiming that it gives him the authority to do what he’s done. The person or organization suing him will obviously disagree because, after all, they are suing him.

Once there is this dispute, who gets to decide who’s right? The judiciary, i.e. federal judges.

Of course this is the and only logical answer, and the right decision by our founding fathers, Congress, and judiciary. Why? Well, if challenged, do you actually think that the President would ever declare his own actions illegal? Of course not. This is especially true when a President really wants to accomplish the thing that he’s trying to do, such as Trump trying to build a big beautiful ballroom for all of his fancy dinners.

Some circles are questioning judicial review and some extreme viewpoints have suggested eliminating judicial review altogether and/or turning to “executive review” instead. This is not advisable.

Eliminating judicial review and allowing the President to decide whether what he’s doing/done is legal or not, would turn a government of laws into a government of one man.

We have a constitution filled with checks and balances for a reason: to prevent tyranny. This is one of them.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

@luvsnoopy8 @Ghostofcynthia It was sarcasm.

[CIVX @CIVXNEWS]

My goodness. You have a gross misunderstanding of the system.

District court judges’ orders carry the same weight as a SCOTUS opinion.

SCOTUS just reviews a circuit court’s opinion, which reviews a district courts opinion.

The district courts orders are law until overturned by a circuit court or SCOTUS.