The government argues that it alone should be allowed to determine which speech by military retirees receives protection and which is out of bounds.
The Constitution vests the power to lay and collect duties squarely in Congress. When Congress delegates that power to the president, it does so with specific conditions and carefully chosen language.
The absence of a judicial remedy is not a verdict that no wrong has been done.
For more than a century, the Jones Act has survived on purported economic and security grounds.
Policymakers should be wary of solutions built on a misleading diagnosis. In housing, as in economics more broadly, how you measure the problem often determines how poorly you solve it.
The fiscal objection is serious. But the deeper problem is that the proposal misunderstands the saving behavior of the households it aims to help.
Federal farm subsidies have kept growing from occasional disaster relief into a sprawling system of commodity supports, crop insurance, sugar protection, and bailouts. With the backdrop of the Farm Bill, Cato’s Ryan Bourne, Chris Edwards, and Clark Packard discuss who really benefits, why reform never sticks, and how tariffs hurt farmers that Congress then subsidize.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Establishing a pre-release review or licensing regime for AI companies would grant the government, particularly the executive branch, significant control over AI technologies that could hinder innovation or control expression. The costs of technological and economic development would be onerous. But the impact it could have on AI-powered speech and content creation could be even worse.
This experience underscores Cato’s unwavering commitment to constitutionally limited government and showcases our willingness to partner with anyone who shares the goal of making that vision a reality.
Senator Mark Kelly appeared in a video reminding servicemembers that they can refuse illegal orders. In retaliation, the Pentagon threatened to revoke Kelly’s military benefits. Such punishment for protected speech violates the First Amendment.
