[TallGuyShort]

I guess where I disagree with you is that I don't think civil law can be the definition of "if someone has been harmed". Otherwise there really is no point to these parts of the Constitution. Among other things, the Constitution defines things that they can't make a law against. Don't you see why the law can't also be the definition of what the exceptions to that amendment are? That interpretation is literally saying "you can't make a law against X unless the law says X is against the law". It's circular logic. I get that it's a tough line to draw but that makes zero sense as the line.