I was sure you weren't attacking me.
Quote me where I pointed the finger please. I don't remember doing it.and I noticed how you claimed that you weren't pointing fingers and then pointed anyways.....
Is the justification that, you had to have the cannabis imported at some point in order for you to grow it in the first place?Case in point: The commerce clause in Article I. The Founders specifically limited the authority of federal legislation to the realm of interstate and international trade, the idea being that intra-state matters were properly under the authority of state governments, and federal authority should not apply. Yet today if you grow pot in your backyard, roll some of it into a doob in your kitchen, and smoke it on your back porch, you can be raided by the DEA and prosecuted under federal law... despite the fact that the cannabis in question never left the county, let alone the state.
The justification for this is tenuous to the point of absurdity, and yet it stands. In my eyes that represents a prima facie failure of our legislators to recognize and abide by the plain meaning of a very important part of the constitution.
Right, but it's extremely hard to really amend it. Sure, it was left as an open ended project, but it's difficult to take advantage of that.To my mind, if you want to change what the constitution means so as to make it more applicable to the current times, amend it. There's a process for that. It's a difficult and time-consuming process, it's true, but it was made that way on purpose and for good reason.