I originally thought a Constitutional Amendment should be proposed to forbid government from making laws that would prohibit people from doing things they wanted to do as long as they did not harm others in the process. However, it seemed a bit clumsy and I was discouraged until I stumbled on some more elegant, thoughtful and comprehensive wording:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

A radical idea like this would dramatically limit the federal government. It would clearly have a hard time gaining traction in a 21st Century Congress since it directly benefits no one and creates a rather stringent test that other legislation has to pass. As far as gaining Administration support, well that would be unexpected. However, I think it's time that someone shows interest.

Particularly, I would hope that the U.S. Supreme Court would take a bit more notice. Luckily it won't be necessary to actually propose this legislation since these exact words are the ninth and tenth amendments and already an integral part of the highest law of the land.

The federal government has been sidestepping the terms of the IX and X Amendments for years based on a rather loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause (one of the enumerated powers).

Article I, Section 8 "The Congress shall have power" Clause 3  "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Although the founders intent of these words may never be known, students are taught in school that it had to do with prohibiting states from charging tariffs on commerce across state borders. The courts have sustained a much looser interpretation that has granted the federal government enormous power.

As an example, in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority that medical marijuana plants grown in a California woman's backyard were illegal and could be confiscated by federal agents even though they were legal under California law. Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because it would affect "overall production" of marijuana, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

This seems like a bit of a stretch. Are they arguing that her use of legal home grown marijuana would reduce demand for illegal gang imported drugs? How is that supposed to be bad? Aren't there some grown ups in charge?