[Lucky Dog]

Thus there is no apparent quarrel anyone should voice as to what constitutes a rational basis for finding a chosen 'drug war' regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of individual liberties.

The point is simple: If you have a quarrel with “the rational basis,” elect some one who agrees with you and those elected officials can change the “rational basis.” Until, and unless, you get such officials elected, you are certainly free to express whatever opinion on the subject you choose, regardless of such opinion’s irrationality or fecklessness.

To so quarrel is merely to substitute the objector's opinion for that of the courts, who must be obeyed.

We live in a nation under law. Consequently, the short answer to your implied question is “yes, we must obey the law,” until we elect someone who will legally change the situation.

"We the people," have delegated the coercive power to adjudicate disputes to the courts. These duly and lawfully appointed adjudicators, in turn, have deferred to Congress, who again, must be obeyed for the good of society.

As noted above, we live in a nation under law. Consequently, the short answer to your implied question remains “yes, we must obey the law,” until we elect someone who will change the situation.

Consequently, attempting to substitute non-judicial opinions for those of those duly appointed and those duly elected is a feckless challenge to good order. If one wishes to directly change the situation, then election of alternate representation in Congress appears to be the correct solution.

Your agreement is noted.

Any attempt to suggest that constitutional amendments are necessary to prohibit drugs are simply bad form, and need not be tolerated by the powers that be.

The Constitution very clearly lays out the procedure for amendments in Article V. Amendments may originate in Congress or as a result of a constitution convention convened by the action of state legislatures. If you choose to attempt to avail yourself of either of these methods, it is fine with me.

However, as to the necessity for an amendment to prohibit drugs, according to Congress, the President and the US Judiciary such an amendment is not necessary. This position is appropriate because Article VI gives the status of “supreme law of the land” to the “laws of the United States.” The laws passed by Congress under the authority of Article I, signed by the President under the authority of the same article, and upheld by constitutionally competent tribunals are, in fact, “laws of the United States.”

[tpaine]

We live in a nation under law. Consequently, the short answer to your implied question is "yes, we must obey the law," until we elect someone who will legally change the situation.

Not true according to Justice Marshall in Marbury [1803]:
"-- an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?
It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory.
It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual.

It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. --"

-- as to the necessity for an amendment to prohibit drugs, according to Congress, the President and the US Judiciary such an amendment is not necessary.
This position is appropriate because Article VI gives the status of "supreme law of the land" to the "laws of the United States."

Not true. "This Constitution," is the supreme law, followed by "and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;" - note that the laws made must 'pursue' [conform to] the Constitution. -- Again, -- Marshall makes this same point in Marbury..

The laws passed by Congress under the authority of Article I, signed by the President under the authority of the same article, and upheld by constitutionally competent tribunals are, in fact, "laws of the United States."

Only if they are not 'repugnant' to the Constitution itself. "-- an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. --"

You really need to study Marbury from Marshalls 'presumption of liberty' point of view. Remarkable document.