Not emotional at all. All our law is founded on Natural Law.We're into semantics here. What change to our system would you like to right this wrong?
The South was unhappy and tried to use their revolutionary right to address the problem. As you point out it didn't turn out so well.
Short of that there's amending the Constitution which clearly won't be done in time for the election. The best alternative to me is to beat Obama fair and square in a good old fashioned election. It's risky, but possible.
I take Lincoln's side. Washington would have too -- his response to the Whiskey Rebellion showed that. I think even George Mason would have taken the Union side -- but for a different reason. Mason had a much higher regard for common law.
That was the South's problem, reflected by Justice Tanney's prideful ruling in Scott. That an elite aristocracy knew best how to rule, and deserved what ruling role it had. In Tanney's case the aristocrats were Judges and Lawyers according to the strict process of law. Like a madrassa schooled Wahabist was Tanney, and like it is under Wahabbi rule, there is a class of non-humans. For Tanney that under of sub-humans were negro africans -- and his view was shared by many in the North, as was discovered post-Reconstruction and in the migration of blacks north. One didn't need Jim Crow Laws in the North -- segregation was enforced more powerfully by social ostracism and neighborhood-by-neighborhood exclusiveness.
But in the south, the negro was viewed as a man. Many were slaves, but those who weren't were men as good as any -- not subhumans like Tanney's Catholic northern mores had them. Until the anti-social consequences of Lincoln's war-zone Emancipation and the carpet-baggers after the war. Those resulted in a lasting distrust of blacks. In the rise of the KKK -- which at its peak was bigger in the North than the South, fwtw.
In the South the pre-war elite class were the landowners, and like the northern lawyer class ruled by contract law, permits and legislation, the southern class of elites ruled by land deed and land rent.
It wasn't because the South wanted to break up the Union and create a federation with greater states rights that they lost, it was because they were dropping all ties to the old natural law faster. Greek and Latin were taught, Hebrew was dropped.
Our system is perfectly fine. It doesn't need changing. The ineligible scam artist needs to be officially disqualified and removed from the nominating process. We require a native born U.S. citizen to avoid foreign entanglements and misplaced loyalties. It was done for a very good reason. That reason has not changed. The non-native born scam artist running for the Democrat nomination has stated he affinities for Muslims over the interest of the United States in his own writings. That is unacceptable. Aside from not being a native born citizen, he already has divided loyalties. Even if he passed the technical requirement of being a native born citizen, he is an anti-American Marxist. He is politically and socially inept and illiterate in the simplest aspects of international relations. There's plenty of reasons to oppose him. It's just much easier to remove him on a strict legal technicality. Just the way he won his earlier political positions by technically disqualifying other black voters who preferred his opponent.