It should be a jury’s right to interpret the law and judge the co…
It should be a jury’s right to interpret the law and judge the convicted accordingly to their own judgment of that law for that case. Isn’t that the purpose of having a jury of peers (http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/jury_peers.html) Instead of asking one to interpret and execute the law you are asking 12 to do so.
Keeping with the question of the article where “is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession……
To my understanding “Since the Constitution needed to be amended in 1919 to authorize federal criminal prosecutions for manufacturing and smuggling alcohol” (meaning the average “joe” isn’t allowed to produce the intoxicating substance themselves without legal permit, therefore forcing citizens to pay the government for permission to produce a substance readily available to all ) they are saying where is the amendment for banning other substance’s that are not “banned” under the amended constitution.
I agree.