Replies

The position I have posted was Congress's statement on the matter. They stated that rather than Ammend the hell out of the Constitution (thereby making it meaningless), they in every generation re-interpret it to meet the needs of the current generation. If they would add Ammendments to it for every need, the Constitution would become a document without meaning.
Without a ton of Ammendments, most of the Spirit remains intact.
That is the Congressional view.

My view is that if you wish to go the 3000 Ammmendments way with the law, no problem with me.
Just know they would add anti-drug Ammendments when they do to have the laws be what they are today.
The first position is of what Congress said and the second part is my willing to go along with you the Ammendment method for everything.

But it doesn't matter. Drug users get aced out no matter which way the law gets formed as I see it.

This is your brain not on drugs:

My view is that if you wish to go the 3000 Ammmendments way with the law, no problem with me. Just know they would add anti-drug Ammendments when they do to have the laws be what they are today. The first position is of what Congress said and the second part is my willing to go along with you the Ammendment method for everything. But it doesn't matter. Drug users get aced out no matter which way the law gets formed as I see it.

My view is that if you wish to go the 3000 Ammmendments way with the law, no problem with me. Just know they would add anti-drug Ammendments when they do to have the laws be what they are today.

Who's "they"? Do you thing Congress amends the Constitution?

Oy! Where to begin.

Aside from the Tenth Amendment, there are good reasons for keeping domestic policy decentralized.

When the Federal government screws up, such as educational policies, welfare, social security, and forest management, it is hard to reverse and affects the entire country.

When a State screws up those policies, the ill effects are contained and serve as an example to the rest of the country.

It allows for more trial and error to see what works, while inflicting less overall damage when it fails.

It allows variation so that people can live in States that are more in keeping with their values and beliefs.

It promotes competition and accountability.

The position I have posted was Congress's statement on the matter. They stated that rather than Ammend the hell out of the Constitution (thereby making it meaningless), they in every generation re-interpret it to meet the needs of the current generation. If they would add Ammendments to it for every need, the Constitution would become a document without meaning. Without a ton of Ammendments, most of the Spirit remains intact. That is the Congressional view.

I have seen some novel defenses of usurpation of power by the federal government. But this one takes the cake. By following the law, WE FRIGGIN' DILUTE THE LAW? What kind of Orwellian doublespeak is that?