Bill of Rights Day: How Your Rights Keep Authoritarianism in Check

“the main opposition to including specific protections for the Bill of Rights came not from those who thought the document went too far, but from people who feared it didn’t go far enough.

James Madison, then a representative in Congress decades before his election to the White House, believed rights are natural and preexist any form of government. Man “has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person,” he commented in a 1792 newspaper column. “Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right.” Protecting specific rights, he feared, might lead Americans to believe those were their only rights, and that they’re granted by government.

In an 1819 letter Jefferson wrote that “rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

That was long after he’d prevailed upon Madison in their correspondence to consider that the new Constitution assigns significant authority to the federal legislative and executive branches and should “guard us against their abuses of power.”

“If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can” with a formal Bill of Rights, he continued. While such a document “is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious.”

The Ninth Amendment addressed Madison’s concerns about protecting only some rights by embedding his natural rights ideas in the document. It states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.””

https://reason.com/2025/12/08/bill-of-rights-day-how-your-rights-keep-authoritarianism-in-check/

Psychoactive Hemp Products Will Be Federally Prohibited in a Year Unless Congress Intervenes

“Thanks to a bill approved as part of the package that ended the federal shutdown, intoxicating hemp products will be federally prohibited as of November 13, 2026, a year after President Donald Trump signed the legislation. Unless Congress intervenes, that ban will put an end to a $28 billion industry that offers psychoactive beverages, edibles, flower, and vape cartridges to consumers in dozens of states.”

https://reason.com/2025/11/24/psychoactive-hemp-products-will-be-federally-prohibited-in-a-year-unless-congress-intervenes/

They Built a Hemp Business in Good Faith but Washington Is About To Crush It

“As the Senate prepared to vote on the funding bill to reopen the federal government earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) warned that passing the legislation would “regulate the hemp industry to death.” Buried deep inside the continuing resolution was a provision that would completely reverse nearly seven years of industry progress—and potentially wipe out small hemp-based businesses.

Under the new provision, any consumable hemp product must contain no more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC—not per serving or gram, but per entire container.

Paul is right: This new rule is a death sentence to the hemp industry. If allowed to stand, it could eliminate 95 percent of all hemp-derived cannabinoid products made in the United States.

The government should not destroy the livelihoods of countless Americans, and it most certainly should not pull the rug out from under a burgeoning industry less than a decade after giving hemp its blessing.

States are squeezing hemp from one side, and now Washington is crushing it from the other—and small businesses, like Cornbread, are stuck in the middle.”

https://reason.com/2025/11/30/they-built-a-hemp-business-in-good-faith-but-washington-is-about-to-crush-it/

Michigan’s Shocking VPN Ban Explained

VPNs are needed for basic privacy, hiding from government overreach, working from home, and corporate security. Banning them like a bill in Michigan does, would be bad economically and an attack on liberty, privacy, and security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9j-T9mQmiw

Oklahoma’s Obscenity Bait and Switch Could Ban Pride Parades and Public Drag Shows

“Oklahoma lawmakers are suggesting that a new state law aimed at “adult performances” means municipalities must predict what sorts of events might become obscene and preemptively prohibit them. It’s a clear recipe for chilling protected speech—especially drag performances, which were one of the main targets of the law.”

https://reason.com/2025/11/03/oklahomas-obscenity-bait-and-switch-could-ban-pride-parades-and-public-drag-shows/

How Oregon’s Drug Experiment Backfired

“Oregon’s three-and-a-half-year experiment with decriminalization is over. Last September, the state legislature overrode the ballot initiative, known as Measure 110, and recriminalized drugs.

With few treatment facilities and lax enforcement, Portland became a safe haven for drug users to pitch tents on the street and get high out in the open. A meth user named Michael, who lives in a tent with his girlfriend on a Portland sidewalk, told Reason that he saw more drug users flow into the city after decriminalization.

“When you look at the frustration that was built up by people who were just doing the things that everybody gets to do, get to take their kids to school, go to work. I mean, I felt it the same way,” says Schmidt. “I don’t like seeing people shooting up where I have to explain to my kids what’s happening right now, and then also maybe not feeling safe because you’re not sure if a person’s in their right mind. Like, that’s not okay.”

decriminalization as a concept is “obviously not” doomed to fail. He points to several Western European countries and cities that have successfully implemented decriminalization policies for years.

Portugal became the first country to decriminalize all drugs in 2001. Overdoses and disease transmission fell, inspiring similar approaches in Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and Zurich, where the police enforced “zero tolerance” against open-air drug scenes with the goal of moving drug use off the streets and indoors.

“When you decriminalize drug possession, that doesn’t mean that you’re decriminalizing drug use on the streets. It doesn’t mean that you are decriminalizing disorderly behavior on the street. Those things need to go hand in hand. That’s what the European approach taught us,” says Nadelmann. “That sort of pragmatism is really what we need in the U.S.”

A robust treatment infrastructure and protection of public spaces made Portugal’s decriminalization sustainable. When the country decriminalized drugs, police stepped up enforcement as the policy took effect. The authorities in Lisbon dismantled shanty towns, relocated their inhabitants, and broke up an open-air drug scene known as “the supermarket of drugs.” As Zurich decriminalized, authorities took a “zero tolerance” approach towards large public gatherings of drug users, which they described as “destructive to co-existence.”

In Portland, by contrast, decriminalization coincided with the defund the police movement and a 6 percent budget reduction for the Portland Police Bureau.

as decriminalization took effect in Portland, the city effectively paused street camping removals because of COVID-19, exacerbating a decades-long unsheltered homelessness problem.

The fentanyl epidemic caused a surge in overdose deaths in Portland starting in 2016. Overdoses soared in 2019, two years before decriminalization was implemented.

Only full commercial legalization could stop the fentanyl crisis because it would allow users to buy the drugs they’re seeking from reputable manufacturers, as has happened with cannabis, instead of a black market dominated by cartels selling extremely potent and deadly fentanyl.

Portugal’s system can punish drug users for refusing treatment, but it’s rare in practice. Most who appear before the drug panel get off with a warning. Those deemed to have an addiction are referred for treatment. And a small subset of those refuse and face fines or other sanctions.”

https://reason.com/video/2025/10/01/how-oregons-drug-experiment-backfired/

The New Texas Ban on Cell-Cultured Protein Is an Unconstitutional Interstate Trade Barrier, a Lawsuit Says

A Texas ban on cell-cultured protein is anti-freedom protectionism. If people want to eat fake meat, let them.

https://reason.com/2025/09/04/the-new-texas-ban-on-cell-cultured-protein-is-an-unconstitutional-interstate-trade-barrier-a-lawsuit-says/

Should child gender transitions be banned? Video Sources

What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows Heather Boerner. 2022 5 12. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows Mastectomy John Hopkins Medicine. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/breast-cancer/mastectomy#:~:text=A%20mastectomy%20is%20surgery%20to,a%20high%20risk%20for%20it. Correction: Access to gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and mental health outcomes among transgender adults Jack L. Turban et