She's leaving out a lot of important details.
Firstly, there is a "due process" provision in the Constitution. You have to determine if someone has committed a crime before you can take their property.
In this case, it was an en masse confiscation without due process. Congress can't override the US Constitution without going through the amendment process, and they didn't do that.
Secondly, "Secession in not Rebellion." (Chief Justice Samuel P. Chase.) No effort was made by the seceding states to seize power in Washington DC and overthrow the elected government. It was not a "rebellion" it was "independence." The claim that it was a "rebellion" is just a lie.
Thirdly, Abraham Lincoln wrote out an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney and gave it to a Federal Marshall who was his good friend and personal bodyguard and told him to serve it on the Judge whenever he thought the time appropriate.
Lincoln tried to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court! (Doodle will tell you the Federal Marshall bodyguard made the whole thing up, but there is other corroborating evidence indicating it really happened.)
So after trying to arrest a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the court became Lincoln's lapdog and would do anything he asked them to do.
So a 1862 Supreme Court rendering a "decision" is like a Soviet court rendering a decision. It will be whatever the power holder wants.
Firstly, there is a "due process" provision in the Constitution. You have to determine if someone has committed a crime before you can take their property.
What the 5th Amendment says is "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The Confiscation acts were law.
You have to determine if someone has committed a crime before you can take their property.
Apparently not in your imaginative interpretation. We're not talking about a simple crime. What you overlook is that the Southerners were waging a rebellion against the U.S. and that Southern citizens were belligerents in that rebellion. Therefore their property, and that of neutrals if they were in the territory of the belligerent, can be subject to seizure without compensation. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional in that.
Secondly, "Secession in not Rebellion." (Chief Justice Samuel P. Chase.)
No, rebellion is rebellion. And rebellion was what the Southern states were engaged in during the 1861 to 1865 period.
<1>Lincoln tried to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court! (Doodle will tell you the Federal Marshall bodyguard made the whole thing up, but there is other corroborating evidence indicating it really happened.)
Doodle will also point out that no such arrest warrant was ever served, no copy has ever been found, and not a single one of Chief Justice Taney's biographers found enough credible evidence to include anything about the Taney arrest warrant in any of their books. Fake news from the Lost Cause Book of Fairy Tales.
So after trying to arrest a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the court became Lincoln's lapdog and would do anything he asked them to do.
One of DiogenesLamp's favorite whines, vintage 2022.