Drugs, poverty, yes. Protecting the lives of citizens from willful human physical threat is already part of the constitution. But Im not opposed to amendments when we are unsure.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

As more supporting evidence, here is a veto message by President Buchanan when he rejected Congresses attempt to dispose of public lands to people and states for the purposes of homesteading and other state uses. Today we do that with various pork projects.

James Buchanan: Veto Message

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Funny how you left out the single most expensive "war" out there, the one that has sucked up more money than either of the two you've mentioned and been just as, if not more ineffective. I refer of course to the "war on poverty"

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

At least the war on poverty is aimed at improving the lives of citizens. There is some societal good involved there. That cannot be said of the other two.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master, who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the last extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

The Constitutional issues with those artificial wars on abstractions is that the federal government is only delegated those powers by the several States of the Union. The general government of the Union does not have any inherent and organic police powers as do the several States.

Raising money for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated reason for the power to tax.

Yeah, we would be so much better off with more widespread drug use and terrorists slaughtering our citizens on a regular basis.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I think we have too many amendments already.

Providing for the common Defense is specifically enumerated while providing for the common Offense or general Warfare is not. We should not have any Wars on abstractions as they do not provide for the common defense or general welfare of the republic.

It is only a warfare-state that would have a "war" on poverty. A welfare-state would have simply complied with existing federal doctrine and state laws to accomplish the same thing, but in a much more market friendly manner.

IMO there is no constitutional constraint involved.

It is possible our entire government could take on a socialist demeanor if in its actions it did not conflict with the "bill of rights".

Madison was right to fear the strength of Atticle 1 section 8 item 1 and his fear meant he recognized it to be a legitimate avenue of incredible power to legislate control. However others felt it necessary to be in position to change the government of a purely Capitalistic nature if called for he and under the methods we chose to be governed signed off on the constitution.

__________________
Laws are purchased-Justice is prayed for.

BTW, just for the record, I am not saying I neccesarily disagree with the notion that many of our drug laws and enforcement activities at the Federal level are not provided for under the scope of the original understanding of the Constitution. Nor am I particularly passionate about anti-drug laws (except for selling to minors which I think should be a life in prison, NO possibility of parole offense first time). However, never cease to be amused by lefties who attack the propriety and/or constitutionality of our federal drug laws without realizing that the exact same reasoning would apply to 90% of what they DO support the Federal Government to do.

If we apply a more restrictive interpretation of the Commerce Clause to negate federal drug laws, we must also apply that same standard to such wonderfully extra-constitutional things as the federal minimum wage.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Alcohol is both legal and socially acceptable; it also does more "slaughtering" of our citizens on a yearly basis than did the "terrorists".

There is nothing preventing our Congress from implementing a drug war in DC and other federal property. However, our federal Constitution (and our Bill of Rights) specifically applies to the general government of our federal Union.

The Constitutional question is about States' rights, privileges, and immunities.
The repeal of Prohibition clearly repealed the only delegated power to Prohibit forms of Commerce (i.e. Alcohol and its use as a powerful mood altering drug).

Regulating commerce should require a tax to defray that expense and form of market based metric.

You clearly don't understand what the phrase "weights and measures" means.

Using your obscenely stretched definition above, "weights and measures" could be applied to anything from the content of your speech to the property you own to who you can marry.

Fortunately, nobody else seems to share your warped definition.

Matt

Article one section 8 Item 1 of our Constitution says "Provide" for the common Defence "and" general Welfare of th United States (meaning inahabitants of in both cases) It "is" enumerated in the constitution !

__________________
Laws are purchased-Justice is prayed for.

No constitutional constraints are ignored. Your "solution" would require endless amendments. This clause was written to allow congress to carry out its responsiiblies without endless amendments. The health care bill contains no provisions which are new or unprecedented or rise to the level of scary constitutional challenge.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master, who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the last extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon