[Timocrat]

Lets get one thing straight. Slavery is abhorrent. Indeed I believe there's a good legal argument that Amendment V to the Constitution prohibits it.viz " ..nor shall any person be ....deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law..." Were slaves deprived of their liberty? Yes. Was it done by due process of law? No. The fundamental question was can a person be considered property and my answer is no because, if one can, anyone can. While I believe the Southern States were legally correct, morally they were wrong.

What I'm anxious to establish is the right to seccede because a Federal government which requires you to buy health insurance is most certainly acting "Ultra Vires" the powers granted to it by the states under the Constitution.

[Notary Sojac]

I agree that the Confederate states had the right to secede and form a separate nation.

That having been done, I would have no problem with the North (either as government policy or via citizens' groups acting privately) encouraging "regime change" by the slaves against their masters just as we should be encouraging regime change in Iraq.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"What I'm anxious to establish is the right to seccede because a Federal government which requires you to buy health insurance is most certainly acting "Ultra Vires" the powers granted to it by the states under the Constitution."

I don't get the connection between some supposed power to secede and the current health care debate. As noted in post 78, the writer of the Constitution didn't think a state had any power to secede. He and Jefferson also proved that by their actions vis a vis in regards to the New England states during their presidencies. Jefferson and the founders believed you had the moral authority to rebell against a government if it became abusive and controlling. The Federal government under Lincoln wanted to not extend slavery to the new states and territories. They never tried to abolish slavery in the Southern states until after they were in rebellion. How is a government being abusive to it's citizens by not extending slavery to any new states or territories that join the union?

You are trying to claim that the states retained some sort of power to opt out of the United States. It's not backed up by history. They can rebell, but not just decide to opt out. However, history does back up the fact that the United States government has never forced it's citizens to buy a product or service.

[Sherman Logan]

Were slaves deprived of their liberty? Yes. Was it done by due process of law? No.

Actually, slavery was enforced by perfectly legal due process.

You're confusing morality, what the law should say, with what it actually says.

Through most of human history the legal systems of all nations have used due process to enforce laws we would consider uttterly gross violations of human rights and of morality.

The Nazi and Commie regimes being good recent examples. Jim Crow was an example in our own country. For that matter, sharia law is the law of the land in Muslim countries and uses perfectly legal due process.

Legal does not necessarily equal right or moral. Unfortunately.