You know the answer to that.
Amendments clarify and guide the Fed gov. They are essentially a restriction or negative right, as some call it.
For example...If you were to submit to congress a grievance through your representative that tells Congress that it no longer has any power over government agencies, ie: creation and oversight. And the people approve that, then that's what happens.
So agencies then would be the sole responsibility of the executive branch and oversight would be from the courts.
Just a stupid example for you.
Currently, Congress is the only branch with oversight of fed agencies.
To change how MJ is handled and viewed by the agencies of government you must petition congress to reset the way in which agencies deal with it, and do this through their oversight responsibility. This could happen if, there is strong enough group of people with enough political power to make this happen.
I would think it unlikely, as Congress pretty much punts the ball to the agencies, but anything is possible.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. "
That would imply a premise that the federal government is granted all powers not explicitly denied to it in the Constitution, and that is dead nuts wrong.