Federal Agencies | Tenth Amendment Center
TAC Blog: News and Updates from the Nullification Movement
Wed, 25 Mar 2026 17:35:26 +0000
en-US
hourly
1
Federal Agencies | Tenth Amendment Center
32
32
yes
Federal Agencies | Tenth Amendment Center
false
podcast
Federal Agencies | Tenth Amendment Center
Free Speech for Me But Not For Thee
Wed, 25 Mar 2026 17:35:26 +0000
What's going on is chilling. Chilling is government behavior toward speech that is intended to give the speaker pause or fear such that the speaker has second thoughts about speaking. Chilling is prohibited by the First Amendment and has been repudiated by the Supreme Court.
The post Free Speech for Me But Not For Thee appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Last week, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission threatened to rescind the broadcast licenses of media entities that do not relate events in Iran or Ukraine as the Trump administration would like them to be related. He also attacked The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times for the same reasons. This followed by one day a verbal attack on CNN by the Secretary of Defense who made known his bitter unhappiness with CNN’s coverage of the Iran war.
Yet, CNN is not regulated by the FCC, which only regulates broadcast media — not cable or streaming; and newspapers, thanks be to God, are totally unregulated.
So, what’s going on here?
What’s going on is chilling. Chilling is government behavior toward speech that is intended to give the speaker pause or fear such that the speaker has second thoughts about speaking. Chilling is prohibited by the First Amendment and has been repudiated by the Supreme Court.
Here is the backstory.
The freedoms of speech and of the press are expressly protected by the First Amendment and have enjoyed wide reinforcement by the courts since the mid-1960s. The original Constitution lacked an express protection for public speech and for the printed word. Yet, the Federalists who were the prime political movers in the ratification of the Constitution by the states feared that some of the states would leave the union if a bill of restraints were not imposed on the new federal government by way of amendments.
The critical historical figure here is James Madison, who was initially a Federalist at the creation of the republic but became an anti-Federalist soon thereafter. Madison became repulsed at the federal government taking control of the banking system with a wholly owned bank, for which he argued fiercely there is no authority in the Constitution.
As chair of the House of Representatives committee to draft a bill of restraints, Madison embraced language from the Anti-Federalist Papers, which were a series of pamphlets arguing against ratification of the Constitution. Madison — who wrote the Constitution and authored about a third of the Federalist Papers that argued in favor of ratification — saw the grasping hand of government growth, and it was enough for him to embrace in part the arguments made against his Constitution.
Part of Madison’s genius was to call the bill of restraints a Bill of Rights and to ground much of it in natural law. Natural law teaches that all human adults with unimpaired mental faculties are able to discern right from wrong, good from evil, and truth from falsity using human reason, free from government interference.
Stated differently, the Bill of Rights does not create rights; it presumes their preexistence, and it prevents the government from interfering with them. Thus, the First Amendment does not say that Congress shall grant the freedom of speech or of the press; it says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
Madison insisted that the word “the” precede the word “freedom” in order to emphasize its existence before the government came into being. Where did the freedoms of speech and press originate? They originated in our humanity.
Thus, every person may think as he wishes and say what he thinks and publish what he says, not because of the First Amendment but because these rights — thought, speech, press — are integral to our humanity. Of course, they are also integral to liberal democracy in the form of our republic, as well.
When the federal government began regulating the airwaves in the heyday of radio, and before television came along, it imposed an equal time rule. This rule was particularly acute during the growth of television in the 1960s and 1970s. Then along came a more libertarian attitude in the Reagan administration, and the equal time rule was formally repealed in 1987.
This was a rule promulgated by the FCC. It was not a statute enacted by Congress. That’s the point of the FCC chair’s chilling. He knows and the broadcast networks and their local television stations know that a simple vote of three FCC commissioners can reinstate the equal time rule, thereby putting the heavy hand of government back into the business of evaluating the content of speech. Of course, this would only apply to new licenses, not to those already in existence, most of which expire in 2028.
But the damage is done. The government is threatening to change the rules and even put broadcast giants out of business because they may paint the war in Iran in an unflattering light.
Now back to the First Amendment. The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the business of speech. The chair of the FCC has the same natural free speech rights as the rest of us, but the government — which is an artificial entity based on a monopoly of force over a defined geographic location — has no free speech rights.
The government has no basis to prefer some speech over others. If that were not so, then we’d not have a liberal democracy that thrives on the unfettered ability of all persons to speak their minds on matters of public interest without fear of incurring the wrath of the government. An argument should rise or fall in the marketplace of ideas based on its appeal to an audience, not government coercion or censorship, which are antithetical to the essence of liberal democracy.
This is a profound constitutional issue, not a political one. If the government could frame the debate about itself, it wouldn’t be a debate. And if a Donald Trump-dominated FCC can punish broadcasters for headlines critical of the war, couldn’t a Gavin Newsom-dominated FCC punish broadcasters for headlines favorable to gun rights?
Why does the government hate and fear the speech of its critics?
The post Free Speech for Me But Not For Thee appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
New ATF Report: Gun Control Enforcement Near Record Highs Again
/2024/08/new-atf-report-gun-control-enforcement-near-record-highs-again/
Mon, 05 Aug 2024 19:01:09 +0000
/?p=43973
Despite what supporters of the monster state want you to believe, “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. Yet, today - we have another example proving that words on paper can’t enforce themselves: The latest annual report from the ATF reveals that federal gun control enforcement is close to record levels - once again. And even though they want YOU to believe it’s “for your safety,” almost all their top enforcement actions are for paperwork violations.
The post New ATF Report: Gun Control Enforcement Near Record Highs Again appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Despite what supporters of the monster state want you to believe, “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. Yet, today – we have another example proving that words on paper can’t enforce themselves: The latest annual report from the ATF reveals that federal gun control enforcement is close to record levels – once again. And even though they want YOU to believe it’s “for your safety,” almost all their top enforcement actions are for paperwork violations.
Path to Liberty: August 5, 2024
Subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Podbean | Youtube Music | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS | More Platforms Here
SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC
Show Archives
St. George Tucker – View of the Constitution of the United States (1803)
Report: 2023 Federal Gun Control Enforcement Near Record Levels
Mercy Otis Warren – Observations on the New Constitution (1788)
James Madison – Federalist 46 (29 Jan 1788)
Noah Webster – An Examination Into the Leading Principles of America (17 Oct 1787)
John Dickinson – Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania No. IX (1767)
The Federal Gun Laws Trump Is Proud to Enforce
Roger Sherman – A Countryman II (22 Nov 1787)
MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble
Watch on Odysee
Watch on X
Watch on Minds
Watch on Facebook
Watch on Bitchute
Watch on Brighteon
Watch on TikTok
Watch on LinkedIn
FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:
Become a Member:
Email Newsletter:
RSS:
The post New ATF Report: Gun Control Enforcement Near Record Highs Again appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Tenth Amendment Center
New ATF Report: Gun Control Enforcement NEAR RECORD HIGHS Again
full
24:12
Supreme Court Just Helped out the Real Colorado
/2024/07/supreme-court-just-helped-out-the-real-colorado/
Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:32:44 +0000
/?p=43923
In the Loper Bright case, the Supreme Court reduced the threat. By discarding the Chevron Doctrine, the court assured that when the Deep State attacks a citizen, the citizen will have more of a fighting chance.
The post Supreme Court Just Helped out the Real Colorado appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Here is something you might not realize if you never venture outside the Denver-Boulder metroplex or if you are part of the state’s benighted “progressive” ruling class: Colorado is not Massachusetts or New York.
Most of the state is economically and culturally part of the American West. Traditionally, that’s the Real Colorado.
People in the Real Colorado, like people in Montana, Idaho, Utah, and other Western states, largely live off the land. Farming, ranching, mining, hydrocarbons, and tourism are central to the economy. Those who live in the Real Colorado, like those in other Western states, share the individualism and traditional values the “progressive” crowd would delight to destroy.
Folks in the Real Colorado don’t get many breaks these days, but the US Supreme Court just gave them one.
It was the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which pulled the plug on the infamous “Chevron Doctrine.”
The Chevron Doctrine
The Chevron Doctrine was one of the fig leaves that 20th century liberal activist Supreme Court majorities used to pretend the federal administrative state is somehow constitutional. Here’s the background:
The Constitution grants Congress power “to regulate Commerce … among the several States.” By “Commerce” the Constitution means mercantile trade and a few associated activities. Other economic activities, particularly those involving land within state boundaries, are not “Commerce” as the Constitution uses that word. Regulating such matters was reserved almost exclusively to the states—that is, to governments closer to the people than the distant Washington, D.C. establishment.
During the years 1787 to 1790, Americans debated whether the Constitution should be ratified. The document’s advocates emphasized repeatedly that the proposed Constitution limited the economic power of the federal government. Only the states could regulate in-state land transactions, agriculture, mining, and other forms of land use. These representations were confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Beginning around 1940, however, liberal Supreme Court majorities stopped enforcing those limitations on federal power. The court pretended that “Commerce . . . among the several States” meant “the entire economy.”
The result was a bonanza for federal politicians. They reveled in their new-found power and passed laws on almost every conceivable subject. Eventually, even your personal toilet became subject to federal regulation.
But the politicians who so enjoyed inflicting laws on the rest of us couldn’t be bothered monitoring those laws. So they passed statutes creating administrative agencies and granting those agencies vast powers.
Yet even those vast powers were limited. When agencies attacked Western land owners and land users, the victimized citizens sometimes went to court to argue that the agency was exceeding its statutory authority.
Well, we can’t have that! So in 1984, yet another liberal Supreme Court majority issued what became known as the “Chevron Doctrine.” It said that in most cases, an agency is the judge of its own authority. If there was any basis for the agency’s conclusion—even if the conclusion was wrong—the judicial branch would abdicate and let the agency rule in its own favor.
Agency abuse
What followed was, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, a “long train of abuses.” Federal agencies invaded the jurisdiction of the states to assault Western property owners.
A good example was on the Supreme Court docket last year: Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In that case, an Idaho couple (the Sacketts) had decided to backfill their land, but the EPA ordered them to reverse the process.
As a constitutional matter, this land use issue should have been one for Idaho state officials—not for the federal government. But the EPA claimed jurisdiction as part of its authority over “navigable waters.”
There was no water—navigable or otherwise—on the Sacketts’ land. But that didn’t bother the federal bureaucrats. The EPA argued that—
The Sacketts’ lot lay beside a 30-foot-wide road;
on the other side of the road was a non-navigable water ditch;
the ditch flowed into a non-navigable creek;
the non-navigable creek flowed into Priest Lake;
although Priest Lake is located wholly within the State of Idaho and is not a trade route, tourists sometimes used it; so
the EPA had designated the lake as “navigable,” and therefore
the EPA had jurisdiction over the backfilling of a lot 30 feet away from a non-navigable ditch entering into a non-navigable stream entering into an isolated lake that was “navigable” because the EPA had declared it so.
All of this might sound like a joke. But the EPA’s threat to fine the Sacketts up to $40,000 per day certainly was no joke.
What the Supreme Court just did
Last year’s case of Sackett v. EPA has a happy ending. The Supreme Court unanimously told the feds to back off.
But farmers, ranchers, and other land owners still could fear the feds would come for them next. At any time, land owners might be subjected to obliterating financial penalties for draining a mudhole or being insufficiently kind to some federally-favored species.
In the Loper Bright case, the Supreme Court reduced the threat. By discarding the Chevron Doctrine, the court assured that when the Deep State attacks a citizen, the citizen will have more of a fighting chance.
At least if it looks like the agency exceeded its legal authority, that question now will be tried by a court—not by the agency itself.
This article first appeared in Complete Colorado on July 4, 2024.
The post Supreme Court Just Helped out the Real Colorado appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Bully Government Bullies Apple
/2024/03/bully-government-bullies-apple/
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 18:49:31 +0000
/?p=43440
In yet another example of the government rejecting founding principles by working to bring businesses under federal control, the DOJ and 16 state attorneys general accused Apple of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a “law” allowing the government to intervene against companies said to be acting "in restraint of trade or commerce."
The post Bully Government Bullies Apple appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
In yet another example of the government rejecting founding principles by working to bring businesses under federal control, the DOJ and 16 state attorneys general accused Apple of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a “law” allowing the government to intervene against companies said to be acting “in restraint of trade or commerce.”
Path to Liberty: March 27, 2024
Subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Podbean | Google | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS | More Platforms Here
SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC
Show Archives
John Jay to Florida Blanca (25 Apr 1780)
Peletiah Webster – An Essay on Free Trade and Finance (Jul 1779)
Thomas Jefferson – First Inaugural Address (4 March 1801)
Elizabeth Nolan Brown – The Absurd Apple Antitrust Lawsuit
DOJ Civil Complaint (21 Mar 2024)
Ed Hardy – Cult of Mac
Wiki – Super-App
Apple to put USB-C connectors in iPhones to comply with EU rules
Front Page Tech: Apple vs America
If You Give a Mouse a Cookie
John Dickinson – Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania No. IX (1767)
John Jay – A Citizen of New York (1788)
Oliver Ellsworth – A Landholder III (19 Nov 1787)
MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble
Watch on Odysee
Watch on Twitter
Watch on Minds
Watch on Facebook
Watch on Bitchute
Watch on Brighteon
Watch on LinkedIn
FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:
Become a Member:
Email Newsletter:
RSS:
The post Bully Government Bullies Apple appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Tenth Amendment Center
Bully Government Bullies Apple
full
34:20
Republicans Miss the Point on Government Regulations
/2023/08/republicans-miss-the-point-on-government-regulations/
Tue, 08 Aug 2023 01:51:54 +0000
/?p=42181
The problem with these new government regulations is the same problem with the old government regulations: they should not exist in the first place.
The post Republicans Miss the Point on Government Regulations appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
First, they came for our incandescent light bulbs and gas stoves, and now, they are after our water heaters and dishwashers.
Back in 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act. Among other things, it required greater efficiency for light bulbs, which effectively began the phase-out of the incandescent light bulb, with some exceptions. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has confirmed that it will now proceed with a ban on the manufacture and retail sale of most incandescent light bulbs. The DOE claims that incandescent light bulbs are inefficient and contribute to climate change. Discontinuing them “will save Americans nearly $3 billion yearly and substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions over 30 years” to the tune of 222 million metric tons, “an amount equivalent to emissions generated by 28 million homes in one year.”
In January of this year, the commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Rich Trumka, floated the idea of a future ban on gas stoves because they can cause indoor air pollution and contribute to climate change. House Republicans, joined by some Democrats, passed a bill recently to “prohibit the use of federal money to regulate gas stoves as a hazardous product” and to “block an Energy Department rule setting stricter energy efficiency standards for stovetops and ovens.”
Even some Democrats couldn’t handle these proposed regulations, like Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who has often been a thorn in the side of the Biden administration: “The federal government has no business telling me – or any American family – how to cook dinner. That’s why I’m proud to lead a bipartisan bill with @SenTedCruz to ensure Americans decide how to cook in their own homes.”
The DOE is now proposing as well more stringent efficiency requirements for electric water heaters: “The proposal would require the most common-sized electric water heaters to achieve efficiency gains with heat pump technology and gas-fired instantaneous water heaters to achieve efficiency gains through condensing technology.” The new standards will “save Americans approximately $198 billion and reduce 501 million metric tons of harmful carbon dioxide emissions cumulatively over 30 years — roughly equivalent to the combined annual emissions of 63 million homes, or approximately 50 percent of homes in the United States.”
But as Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) has well said: “These products already exist in the free market. Consumers should decide whether the upfront cost of a heat-pump water heater is worth the possible long-term savings. In many cases, the monthly savings never make up for the upfront cost of the equipment.”
The Biden administration is also now targeting dishwashers. The DOE recently published a 255-page document proposing new energy-efficiency standards for dishwashers. The new standards will “save consumers nearly $3 billion in utility bill savings over the ensuing 30 years of shipments and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 12.5 million metric tons.”
But as the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ben Lieberman pointed out: “By the agency’s own analysis, the proposed rule would save consumers $17 over the life of a standard dishwasher, which it estimates at 15.2 years. That works out to $1.12 per year. Against this miniscule benefit is the very real risk of greatly diminished performance and convenience for consumers.”
Things are actually worse than they appear. The DOE’s Building Technologies Office (BTO) implements minimum energy conservation standards for more than 60 categories of appliances and equipment. The Energy and Policy Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) authorizes the Secretary of Energy to promulgate energy- and water-conservation standards for household appliances.
It is good to see Republicans push back against these DOE standards. However, they miss the point on government regulations.
The problem with these new government regulations is not that they are too stringent, too expensive, too annoying, cause more harm than good, have costs that exceed their benefits, or are based on the fallacy of a “climate crisis.” The problem with these new government regulations is the same problem with the old government regulations: they should not exist in the first place.
The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to set safety standards, conservation standards, efficiency standards, emission standards, fuel economy standards, or any other kind of standards. Even if someone believes that it is the job of government to do these things, it is to the state governments that he must appeal. The federal government not only has no authority to regulate appliances, it has no authority to regulate automobiles, airplanes, toys, food, product labels, ladders, tires, drugs, or the hundreds of other things that it regulates.
One would think that Republicans—who claim to be the party of the Constitution—would know these things.
The truth is, Republicans are okay with government regulations as long as they are not excessive. Just like they are okay with funding family planning as long as abortions are not performed, funding the National Endowment for the Arts as long as it doesn’t fund pornographic art, and funding research grants as long as the grants are not for something too outrageous.
But Republicans don’t just miss the point on government regulations. They are hypocrites as well.
Speaking against the DOE proposal to regulate gas stoves out of existence, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) remarked that the rule is “not about public safety. It is about telling the American people the federal government knows best and will decide what kind of car they can drive, how they can heat their house and now how they’re allowed to cook food for their families.”
What she says may sound good, but the fact is that Republicans have always dictated what Americans can think, such as when it comes to discrimination, or what Americans can smoke when it comes to marijuana, or what Americans can do with their money when it comes to gambling. Examples of their hypocrisy, in fact, are too numerous to mention.
Republicans have been missing the point on government regulations for a very long time.
Originally published at the Future of Freedom Foundation and reposted here with permission.
The post Republicans Miss the Point on Government Regulations appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Top-4 That Need to Go
/2023/08/top-4-that-need-to-go/
Fri, 04 Aug 2023 16:58:48 +0000
/?p=42170
To support the constitution and liberty, these four big federal monstrosities absolutely need to go. But that doesn’t mean we should ever expect the people with power to voluntarily give up that power.
The post Top-4 That Need to Go appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
To support the constitution and liberty, these four big federal monstrosities absolutely need to go. But that doesn’t mean we should ever expect the people with power to voluntarily give up that power.
Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: August 4, 2023
Subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Podbean | Google | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS | More Platforms Here
SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC
Show Archives
How the National Bank Destroyed the Limits of Constitution
Thomas Jefferson – Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank
Book – The National Bank vs the Constitution
Goldback.com
James Madison – Political Observations (20 Apr 1795)
PA Deacon – War: A Tool For Politicians to Centralize Power
Episode – The Power to Declare War: An Introduction
Episode – Defend the Guard: Support the Constitution, Resist the Empire
Episode – 4 Essential Steps to Nullify Federal Gun Control
Episode – The Constitution on the War on Drugs
Anthony Gregory – Gun Control and the War on Drugs
Episode – Lessons from Nullifornia: Part 1, Plants
MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble
Watch on Odysee
Watch on Sovren
Watch on Twitter
Watch on Minds
Watch on Facebook
Watch on Bitchute
Watch on Brighteon
Watch on LinkedIn
Watch on Gab
FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:
Become a Member:
Email Newsletter:
RSS:
The post Top-4 That Need to Go appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Tenth Amendment Center
Top-4 That Need to Go
full
17:26
FDA Can’t Regulate CBD, Punts to Congress
/2023/07/fda-cant-regulate-cbd-punts-to-congress/
Thu, 06 Jul 2023 15:06:57 +0000
/?p=42056
In effect, the agency wants more power and more regulations, but it can't figure out how to achieve the goal given the market dynamics.
The post FDA Can’t Regulate CBD, Punts to Congress appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has conceded it cannot regulate CBD under its current congressional authority. That means theoretically, CBD and cannabinol will remain illegal at the federal level for the foreseeable future. In practice, it means the status quo will continue with CBD being widely available and most regulation occurring at the state level.
Many people think CBD is totally legal now due to the fact that it’s available on virtually every street corner and the 2018 farm bill legalized industrial hemp. But this is not the case.
While the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) no longer has the authority to regulate or prohibit hemp, the provisions of the farm bill don’t limit the FDA. Farmers can legally grow hemp for commercial purposes, but the sale of cannabinol or food products containing CBD remains illegal at the federal level per FDA regulations. In fact, a section in the farm bill makes this explicit.
Section 297D, paragraph (c)(1) “Regulations and Guidelines; Effect on Other Law” states “nothing in this subtitle shall affect or modify the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”
Under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, the FDA claims the authority to regulate CBD as a medication, and as a supplement in food and beverages.
The FDA classifies CBD as “a drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted.” Under federal law, that designation means the FDA maintains full control over the substance and it cannot be marketed as a “dietary supplement.” The agency also maintains that the sale of CBD or any food products containing the substance is illegal. To date, the FDA has only approved one medication with cannabidiol as an active ingredient – Epidiolex for the treatment of seizures.
Under section 201(ff)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(3)(B)], THC and CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition. …
Under section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 331(ll)], it is prohibited to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any food (including any animal food or feed) to which has been added a substance which is an active ingredient in a drug product that has been approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 355], or a drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public. …
The FDA further declares, “It is a prohibited act to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any food (including any animal food or feed) to which THC or CBD has been added.” Under the federal definition of “interstate commerce,” this includes virtually all CBD products.
But things aren’t as cut and dry as FDA proclamations may sound.
While the agency declares to this day that CBD in food or beverages is illegal, it recognizes that there is no way to enforce an outright ban with CBD products already widely available throughout the United States, its rules and proclamations notwithstanding. That genie left the bottle long ago and there is no way to stuff it back in.
As a result, the FDA has been trying to find a way to practically regulate CBD and cannabinol for several years. In effect, the agency wants more power and more regulations, but it can’t figure out how to achieve the goal given the market dynamics.
The FDA held its first public meeting relating to CBD in May 2019. FDA principal deputy commissioner Amy Abernethy said there is a need to “further clarify the regulatory framework to reduce confusion in the market,” and “Key questions about product safety need to be addressed. Data are needed to determine safety thresholds for CBD.”
In March 2020, FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn delivered a report to Congress on CBD.
“FDA is currently evaluating issuance of a risk-based enforcement policy that would provide greater transparency and clarity regarding factors FDA intends to take into account in prioritizing enforcement decisions. Any enforcement policy would need to balance the goals of protecting the public and providing more clarity to industry and the public regarding FDA’s enforcement priorities while FDA takes potential steps to establish a clear regulatory pathway.”
A January 2021 FDA report shows the FDA had made little headway in promulgating a new policy.
Now it appears the FDA has given up completely and punted the issue to Congress in hopes it can get more control.
In January 2023, the FDA issued a statement saying the agency couldn’t regulate CBD as foods or supplements under its current regulatory structure. In effect, that means the agency can’t figure out a workable rulemaking scheme without Congress granting it new authority.
“Today we are announcing that after careful review, the FDA has concluded that a new regulatory pathway for CBD is needed that balances individuals’ desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage risks. The agency is prepared to work with Congress on this matter.”
At the same time, the FDA denied three citizen petitions asking the agency to conduct rulemaking to allow the marketing of CBD products as dietary supplements.
The FDA couched its claim in concerns about safety.
“The FDA’s existing foods and dietary supplement authorities provide only limited tools for managing many of the risks associated with CBD products. Under the law, any substance, including CBD, must meet specific safety standards to be lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement or food additive. … Given the available evidence, it is not apparent how CBD products could meet safety standards for dietary supplements or food additives. For example, we have not found adequate evidence to determine how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm. Therefore, we do not intend to pursue rulemaking allowing the use of CBD in dietary supplements or conventional foods.”
Nevertheless, the FDA asserted that in the meantime, it will maintain the status quo and continue to “take action against CBD and other cannabis-derived products to protect the public in coordination with state regulatory partners when appropriate.” [Emphasis added]
WHAT THEY DIDN’T SAY
If you take the rhetoric at face value, it’s difficult to understand exactly what the FDA is trying to do. On the one hand, the agency claims it can’t adequately regulate CBD because it doesn’t fit under the current authority delegated to it by Congress. On the other hand, it has asserted “full control” over CBD due to approving it as a drug.
What exactly is going on? If it has “full control,” why does it need more authority from Congress?
You have to read between the lines to understand what actually happened.
The reality is, from a practical standpoint, the FDA can’t regulate CBD. But it wants to.
Despite a lot of talk over the last several years, there has been no meaningful federal regulation of CBD. The market is too big. I think this is why the FDA refused the citizen petition to promulgate rules. The agency knew that no matter what rules it laid out, there was no way they were going to be able to enforce them.
While nobody will say this out loud, I think the FDA hopes that more concrete regulatory authority from Congress will allow it to crack down on the market and bring it back under federal control.
With or without congressional intervention, the FDA faces two fundamental problems.
In the first place, CBD is everywhere. You can likely walk into your local gas station or grocery store and buy CBD products.
A 2018 New York Times article asserted that “with CBD popping up in nearly everything — bath bombs, ice cream, dog treats — it is hard to overstate the speed at which CBD has moved from the Burning Man margins to the cultural center.”
This was happening when both the DEA and FDA prohibited CBD. It will undoubtedly continue as long as market demand remains and states don’t interfere.
In 2022, the CBD market generated $9.7 billion in the U.S.
Secondly, the FDA can’t effectively enforce prohibition without the assistance of state and local authorities. The FDA alluded to this fact in its most recent statement when it mentioned it will continue enforcement “in coordination with state regulatory partners.”
The problem for the FDA is in most cases, state regulatory partners aren’t enforcing CBD regulations at all. In fact, many states have explicitly legalized CBD by declaring it a “food additive” or clarifying that is not an “adulterant” under state law. As we’ve seen with marijuana, when states and localities stop enforcing laws banning a substance, the federal government finds it virtually impossible to maintain prohibition.
This is why the FDA wants Congress to step in. It hopes that with more authority, it can rein in the CBD market.
Trying to “crack down” on CBD now would create a political minefield for Congress that it won’t likely want to navigate. In all likelihood, the status quo will continue. That means CBD will be available everywhere that states allow it. And even if Congress were to hand the FDA more authority, it would still find it nearly impossible to regulate the industry without state and local cooperation.
This reveals the fecklessness of federal prohibition when states, localities and most importantly, individuals in the marketplace, refuse to cooperate.
The post FDA Can’t Regulate CBD, Punts to Congress appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Making a Mockery of the 4th Amendment
/2023/06/making-a-mockery-of-the-4th-amendment/
Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:32:28 +0000
/?p=42005
Despite a well-documented pattern of lawlessness by the FBI, including a failure to comply with even the most modest reforms, the secret court charged with ensuring FISA surveillance is lawful has essentially given the FBI unlimited