Posts Tagged ‘Tenth Amendment’

Paxton Sues To Stop Fed Crypto Power Grab

Monday, November 18th, 2024

Another week, another Ken Paxton lawsuit against federal overreach, this time on the cutting edge of cryptocurrency regulation.

A group of states is suing the Security Exchanges Commission (SEC), claiming the commission is overstepping its authority in regulating digital assets like cryptocurrencies — arguing that the SEC’s actions stifle state-level innovation and impose federal control without congressional approval.

Eighteen state attorneys general have joined the lawsuit, one of which is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in addition to DeFi Education Fund, a nonpartisan research and advocacy group.

Along with naming the SEC directly in the complaint, it also lists SEC Chair Gary Gensler, among other officials.

If Gensler’s name rings a vague bell, it may be because he was the chief financial officer for Hillary Clinton’s ill-fated presidential run.

The states want the court to stop the SEC from enforcing regulations and allow them to manage digital assets with their own laws.

“The SEC’s sweeping assertion of regulatory jurisdiction is untenable,” the suit states. “The digital assets implicated here are just that — assets, not investment contracts covered by federal securities laws.”

“They do not entail any traditional investment relationship, in which the investor invests capital and the promoter assumes an ongoing obligation to use that capital in a common enterprise to generate returns that the investor will share.”

The lawsuit goes on to explain that the laws defining what counts as an “investment contract” were written in a clear way, and past U.S. Supreme Court decisions support this definition. Because of this, the complaint asserts, the SEC does not have broad authority to regulate all digital asset transactions as if they were securities. The argument is that the SEC is overreaching beyond what these laws and past rulings allow.

The complaint, filed in Kentucky district court, is asking the court to declare that digital asset transactions are not considered securities if they don’t involve a promise to manage assets for profit. They also want the court to stop the SEC from forcing digital asset platforms to register as securities-related businesses if they don’t meet those conditions. Additionally, the states claim the SEC broke rules by not following proper procedures.

Snip.

While on the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump vowed to protect the blockchain industry, making a bevy of promises to crypto enthusiasts.

Trump took the stage at the Libertarian National Convention back in May, where he promised to stop “Joe Biden’s crusade to crush crypto.” In July he said he would “fire Gary Gensler” on day one of his new administration.

“No longer will your government sit by and watch as Bitcoin jobs and businesses flee to other countries, because America’s laws are too unclear and too tough and too angry and too stiff,” Trump said while delivering the keynote address at a Bitcoin conference. “We will keep each and every Bitcoin job in the United States of America, that’s what we’re going to be doing.”

Texas has become a major center of the crypto and Bitcoin industry in America. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a vocal advocate for the emerging finance sector, and Gov. Greg Abbott signaled he will continue to be friendly to the crypto community, describing himself as a “crypto law proposal supporter.”

There’s a long-running debate about just what the hell cryptocurrencies are under federal law. Unlike other securities (say, a stock or bond), a unit of cryptocurrency is not a token that represents a tangible legal entity in the real world. It’s not a currency as traditionally understood, as it is not backed by specie or the power and authority of a government. It’s not a commodity, because what commodity can be moved across the world at the speed of light?

If it doesn’t actually fit the profile of anything that legislation has specified that the government regulates, then maybe, as Paxton et al assert, then the federal government shouldn’t regulate it. That would seem to be the proper constitutional interpretation under the Tenth Amendment.

While I’m still skeptical of the long-term usefulness of cryptocurrency (though with Bitcoin hovering around $90,000, I sure wish I had mined some back when it was easier to do), the Trump Administration is filled with very smart people who believe in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. History teaches us that it’s best to let new technologies shake out without government interference, so let’s hope Paxton and company’s lawsuit succeeds.

Who Had “Rick Perry, Psychedelic Warrior” on Their 2023 Bingo Card?

Monday, September 25th, 2023

To the surprise of many, Rick Perry has come out for legalization of psychedelic drugs to treat PTSD.

Republican Rick Perry served as governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015 and then did a stint as secretary of energy from 2017 to 2019. He describes himself as a small-government conservative. He’s not in favor of legalizing all drugs, but in the last five years he has warmed up to the idea that psychedelics could be a valuable and legitimate treatment for trauma.

Reason’s Nick Gillespie sat down with Rick Perry in June at the Psychedelic Science 2023 conference to discuss how poorly the U.S. deals with those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and how he believes that psychedelic-assisted therapy can help.

Q: How have you changed your mind about psychedelics?

A: When I got introduced to this approximately five years ago, it was through a young man [Morgan Luttrell] who worked with me at the Department of Energy.

I was the secretary of energy and he was seeing some of his colleagues in the special operations world—this is a former Navy SEAL, who, interestingly enough, today is a United States congressman. He’s the one that started getting me comfortable with “Rick Perry” and “psychedelics” in the same sentence. His twin brother, Marcus Luttrell, lived with us at the governor’s mansion as my wife and I were learning about post-traumatic stress disorder and how poorly our government was dealing with this. And we were trying to find solutions to help heal this young man.

Q: Can psychedelics help individuals struggling with PTSD?

A: I’ve educated myself about the history of this and why psychedelics got taken away from the research world, from the citizens at large. These are medicines that were taken away for political purposes back in the early ’70s that we need to reintegrate. The potential here is stunningly positive.

I’ll give you one example: Rachel Yehuda, Ph.D., who’s working at [Veterans Affairs] in New York. She has two studies in phase three that are showing just amazing results. They have classic symptoms—anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, suicidal thoughts, one or all of those. Seventy-five percent of those individuals who are treated have zero symptoms after six months. Those are stunning numbers.

Q: Do you think people in your political tribe will be able to grasp this message about psychedelics treating trauma?

A: This is an education process and the short answer is yes, I do. Because I’m not for legalization of all drugs. We need to go a little more pedestrian here. Government has fouled this up substantially in the past. Let’s not give them a reason to mess this up, again. Let’s go thoughtfully at an appropriate pace as fast as we can.

Government needs to be limited. It needs to be restrained at almost every opportunity that you can. We haven’t been very successful with that in our country.

This isn’t the first time “Rick Perry” and “drugs” have appeared in a post here, as there was a significant possibility that Perry was hopped up on goofballs following back surgery in his 2012 presidential run flameout. But Perry is very far indeed from a liberal squish. Maybe the time has arrived for Republicans to give serious thought to rethinking current drug policy.

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of drug regulation, which, under the 10th Amendment, should make drug policy the provenance of the states for anything not involving interstate commerce. Federal marijuana prohibition rests on the deeply un-conservative New Deal expansion of federal powers enshrined in Wickard vs. Filburn, which allowed the federal government to regulate what people grow on their own land for their own consumption. And our current drug prohibition policies aren’t keeping illegal drugs flowing into the country from Mexico and China.

On the flip side of that coin, deep blue locales like San Francisco and Seattle have amply demonstrated how not to legalize drugs, refusing to enforce basic law and order and letting mentally ill transients shoplift at will and shit in the streets, destroying the quality of life for law-abiding citizens. Clearly de facto legalization doesn’t work if government refuses their fundamental duty of ensuring ordered liberty.

There’s a vast range of policy options between “throwing teenagers into prison for years for smoking a joint” and “let drug addicted transients shit in the streets.” San Francisco and Seattle show how Democrats run things if left to act on their instincts of hating the police and farming homeless populations for graft. That means Republicans will have to come up with policy options for slow, careful, phased drug legalization policies on their own.

State legalization of marijuana has been a very mixed bag, with vast illegal grow operations popping up in states with even partial/medical legalization, and it hasn’t been nearly the economic boon that the legal pot lobby had forecast. More careful experimentation and data gathering is required.

For psychedelics, the literature seems to indicate that addiction rates are very low, but there are obviously people who have seriously damaged their mind by tripping too much.

But ultimately, the purpose of government is not to protect citizens from themselves. Drug prohibition cuts against fundamental American principles. A lot of modern drug addiction has it roots in the culture of despair, lawlessness, family breakup, social decline and general failure Democrat-run cities have cultivated in their poorest citizens. Starting to fix those problems would do far more to fix the problems of addiction than current drug prohibition policies.

Obviously Joe Rogan needs to interview Rick Perry so they can talk about psychedelic drugs..

The Sounds of Silencers

Tuesday, October 4th, 2022

Ken Paxton clears a hurdle in his goal to expanding the freedom of Texans under federalism.

A lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to exempt Texas-made suppressors from federal regulations will move forward, after federal Judge Mark Pittman on Monday ruled against a motion to dismiss the case.

The ruling constitutes a procedural win for Paxton and co-plaintiffs in the case, which was filed on behalf of several Texas residents.

Attorney Tony McDonald, legal counsel for several of the plaintiffs, wrote on social media that the “big (initial) win” will allow the case to move forward and that the judge rejected the argument that suppressors are firearms accessories and not protected by the Second Amendment.

“Obviously this doesn’t mean we’ll win, but importantly it signals Pittman rejects [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives]’s argument that suppressors are just accessories and are not protected by the 2A. That seemed to be a pretty clear legal question that, if accepted, meant we had no case,” McDonald wrote.

At issue is House Bill (HB) 957, a Texas law recently passed by Representative Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress) exempting firearms silencers or suppressors from federal regulations if they are manufactured, marked, and kept in the State of Texas.

The law empowers the Texas attorney general to file suit on behalf of private citizens who wish to manufacture a suppressor and to obtain a court order enjoining the federal government from enforcing federal firearms regulations before the citizen can move forward.

Under current federal laws, anyone purchasing a firearm suppressor must fill out an extensive background check application, pay a $200 tax, and wait for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to issue their approval — a wait that can sometimes take over a year.

Today’s ruling only allows the case to move forward and doesn’t guarantee either side a final victory.

The case has considerable importance not only on Second Amendment grounds, but on Tenth Amendment grounds as well. It is obvious that the Founders only intended to regulate commerce between states, not within a single state, and much government-expanding mischief has been wrought in the name of the commerce clause. Breathing new life into the Tenth Amendment would help remedy that.

Now we’ll see if the case can make it all the way to the Supreme Court…

Could Kinky Win?

Tuesday, March 25th, 2014

Short answer: No. Especially not this year. But Ross Ramsey is probably correct in saying that Kinky Friedman’s run for Agricultural Commissioner has a better chance of winning statewide than any other Democrat. Kinky has higher name recognition and fewer strong negatives than Wendy Davis or anyone else running.

Too bad for him that Democrats are still bitter at him over “ruining” their one chance to take out Rick Perry.

Kinky is a genuine Texas original, and there are a few Republicans I can see myself voting for Friedman over. Unfortunately for him, however, Sid Miller (the likely Republican runoff winner) isn’t one of them.

Of course all this talk may be premature, since Friedman still has to get past primary opponent Jim Hogan on May 27.

However, I believe that Ramsey is wrong when he states that “Friedman’s idea of legalizing marijuana and making it a cash crop in Texas is out of the mainstream and cannot possibly be a winning issue in a Texas election.”

In fact, there is significant sentiment for marijuana legalization on the “libertarian/Tea Party/Leave me the hell alone” right, partially on Tenth Amendment grounds, and there the “legalize it, regulate it, and tax it” sentiment has been respectable on the right at least since 1992 or so. Certainly marijuana legalization wouldn’t pass the legislature, but I believe that in a (theoretical) statewide referendum would come a lot closer to passage this year than Wendy Davis will come to being elected.

Rick Perry Comes Out For Marijuana Decriminalization

Friday, January 24th, 2014

Rick Perry has come out for marijuana decriminalization and for states rights on legalization (though he still opposes legalization himself).

This makes Perry objectively more pro-legalization that former frequent choom-abuser Barack Obama.

This will be a great surprise to people who know Perry only from the liberal caricature of him in their head, or who haven’t been following the intellectual debate among conservatives, which has leaned toward the “legalize it, regulate it and tax it” position for almost a quarter century now.

Perry has been a staunch supporter of the Tenth Amendment and States Rights. To reiterate what I’ve said before, I oppose the War on Drugs for reasons of general principles (it’s not the purpose of government to save people from themselves), the specific application of constitutional federalism (the Commerce Clause should not apply to the regulation of drugs manufactured and sold within the confines of a single state), and for reasons of budgetary philosophy (making drugs illegal has expanded the size and power of the federal government while increasing the budget deficit; legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs would reduce both the deficit and the harm to individuals and society). My position is not uncommon among conservatives, Republicans, or members of the Tea Party.

So liberals: Stop acting shocked when conservatives come out for decriminalization and legalization. The only reason it is a shock is that you refuse to listen.

Texas Public Policy Foundation Snags Richard Epstein

Friday, March 9th, 2012

The Texas Public Policy Foundation announced that legal scholar Richard A. Epstein was joining them as a Senior Fellow at the Foundation’s Center for Tenth Amendment Studies.

That’s a terrific pickup for them. Epstein is on a very short list of the very most important conservative legal scholars in the country. His book Takings (which, I must confess, I still haven’t read) is widely regarded as the most comprehensive legal exegesis of why the New Deal is unconstitutional. I think Epstein (like Mario Loyola and Ted Cruz) will find the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies an ideal place to further his research.

Congratulations to TPPF for a very solid addition to their already impressive array of scholars.