My understanding is that US states aren't able to pass extraterritorial laws or claim personal jurisdiction based on someone being normally resident within thei

My understanding is that US states aren't able to pass extraterritorial laws or claim personal jurisdiction based on someone being normally resident within their state. That should prevent states from punishing residents for travelling to carry out acts which are legal at their destination. Similarly it should be implicit from the existence and intent of the amendment that the Interstate Commerce Clause doesn't allow the federal government to render it null and void. I think it is a common legal principle that earlier, more general laws are overridden by later, more specific laws. Finally, I don't think there is anything unique about this hypothetical amendment from the perspective of wealth inequality. There are plenty of things that wealthier people are able to take advantage of, including travelling to countries where the drinking age is lower, for example.