Sacramento, CA, USA. The U.S. Justice Department's announcement Friday (Oct. 15) that it would enforce federal anti-marijuana laws in California — even if voters there legalize the drug next month — could ensure even more tension between state and federal laws over the substance.

California has long been the testing ground for what happens when state and federal laws over marijuana clash. While California allows medical use of the drug, the federal government does not, meaning that residents of the nation's most populous state have not always been sure of the legal consequences of using or selling the substance for medical purposes.

Supporters of medical marijuana often point to the case of Charles Lynch as an example of the inconsistency: Lynch, who operated a California medical marijuana dispensary as allowed under state law, nevertheless was convicted in federal court on drug-dealing charges in 2008.

Washington, DC, USA. In a year when angry voters have taken to waving Don’t Tread on Me flags and dressing up in colonial garb, four states are set to vote on whether to hold an event fit for founding fathers: a constitutional convention for their state.

The measures in Iowa, Maryland, Michigan and Montana would be on the ballot this year with or without the Tea Party movement, however.

Those four states are among the 14 that ask voters at set intervals of between 10 and 20 years whether they’d like to write a new constitution.

During a busy election season, the constitutional convention ballot questions have received surprisingly little attention. Many voters are likely to hear of the issue for the first time when they step into the voting booth, even though a “yes” vote could have far-reaching consequences and allow a full-scale overhaul of everything from term limits to the fiscal relationships between state and local units of government.