The Powerless Power of Congress

                         

     One of the powers that congress holds the rights to is naming post offices. Established in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7, of the American constitution inherently bestows upon congress the ability to name and establish post offices. The exact reason why the framers of the constitution decided to leave this power to congress is beyond me, and to be frank, seems like the substituted nonsensical solution of the power struggle among the three branches. This power needs to be assessed on a more local scale, and applied at a smaller level, rather than overwhelming congress with non-detrimental duties.



         Personally, I feel as if this power, if that's what you wish to deem it as, to entitle and establish Post offices is far beneath that of the responsibilities of congress. A more logical solution would be to leave the decision to a local election to determine names and locations for post offices across America. Understandably, mail is a federal service; so in sense, should be regulated by the federal government. However, despite this being true, I think Congress should hold the power to regulate post offices, but should not be pestered with the bothersome minuscule nature of this duty ratified in the first article of the constitution. It seems to me having a separate clause in the constitution just to dictate the naming and establishing of post offices seems beneath the duties of congress, and would in effect decrease the proficiency at which congress operates by adding more responsibility onto their already stuffed plates.

Response to David Acosta's Blog

               David Acosta writes a very well formulated blog over leglislation regarding the legalization of recreational marijuana consumption that can be found here: http://davetherep.blogspot.com/2015/11/legalize-use-of-recreational-marijuana.html

David touches on a multitude of points that are very logical such as the positive effect it could have on the American economy as a taxable product, the beneficial qualities of cannabis, and the many public representative that support this headstrong campaign for legalization of recreational cannabis consumption. He goes on to further his argument by provoking the question of how tobacco is not under prohibition despite its clearly advertised detrimental health effects.


          Another interesting point Acosta makes his direction towards the amount of Americans currently incarcerated for participating in the usage of a naturally occurring product. I too concur that this full frontal marijuana prohibition is without a doubt ridiculous almost to a comedic level, as legislators of the back end of the generational gap desperately hold onto their archaic values.

     My only contradiction to Acosta's argument is that the full legalization of a mind altering substance is infeasible. Although I do agree with him on the majority of his supporting arguments, there are dangers still associated to the drug, although not directly from consumption. I believe the proper course of action would be for a federal wide decriminalization act on marijuana, removing it from the schedule one drug category. However, much like alcohol and tobacco, the market needs to be regulated. To quote our always entertaining professor, Mr. Seago, "We can't have kindergartners smoking joints during recess." Which can easily be inferred to the fact that if marijuana is not regulated on the market full legalization could in fact be detrimental to the American public. By decriminalizing the product, crime rates would reduce, incarceration rates would reduce considerably, and I guarantee you the number of glossy eyes, foolish grins, and snack food intake would increase exponentially here in America.


Very well written post David.