Comment: I like your perspective on the Constitution in general.

(See in situ)


I like your perspective on the Constitution in general.

"I think you misunderstand the Constitution. Unless you are one of those who feels it is a failed document." -Neither are the case. Unless of course, you misunderstand the Constitution :D, because I generally agree with what you have expressed as your understanding of it.

But for maybe one point, a point that you have seemed to further clarify, and regarding that point I still remain somewhat ambivalent or more accurately, relatively unsettled. Believe it or not, back in the day, many good freedom loving people actually made a case to not have a Bill of Rights incorporated therein. Many good folk recognized that their State constitutions already incorporated such Bills of Rights and that having a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution may someday set forth contention with their local writs. The ability of the central government to help protect individuals from oppressive State governments is a double edged sword, a clever but awkward Madisonian concept, and when wielded has been abused as often as it has been used wisely. Is the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution directly applicable only to federal laws, or are they directly and homogenously applicable to State laws and constitutions as well? This is an important question when considering adding an amendment regarding marijuana use. Your words "The idea that everywhere you go in the USA you have the same natural rights, written in the Constitution, under Law." suggest to me that the new amendment would be used to overturn local guidelines and/or restrictions of marijuana use. Therein lies the answer to your wondering why I found your early notions ambivalent...

*"Simultaneously you ambiguously suggested considering the Feds becoming more involved, but in your favor [I assume]."

- How can Feds possibly be MORE involved?!!

After supporting the notion of the Feds being entirely removed from the issue, your concept of incorporating marijuana use protection directly into the US Constitution clashes by suggesting that the Feds might become quite involved [the other way] with overturning the efforts of people attempting to limit the use of marijuana in their local jurisdictions. I'm not even saying here that that would be good or bad. I'm just tellin' it here likes I sees it! You make the "marijuana rights" issue seem uncannily similar to "gay rights". Again, I'm not expressing any opinions of good or bad here, but thanks for stimulating my thoughts on the matter. :)