[JeffAtlanta]

You don't know the difference between the Amendment process (legitimate) and rule by judicial fiat (tyrannical), do you?

No offense, but you throw out some sort of twisted point and when someone shows you that your logic is flawed, you go off on some weird tangent.

If a state passed a law legalizing slavery, the courts would rule it unconstitutional and that would be the end of that. There is already an amendment prohibiting slavery so another one wouldn't help.

[Antoninus]

Apologies if my wording wasn't clear. The amendment process is legitimate--hence, a state that legalized slavery would be in obvious violation of the constitution. Rule by judicial fiat is not based on anything specifically in the constitution but instead relies on "interpretation" of the constitution to find hidden rights--like the right to view, own, and distribute porn. Thus, your analogy is flawed.

And by the way, as a libertarian, what's the problem with slavery? If I sign a valid contract with someone that I waive my legal rights and am willing to work for them in perpetuity in exchange for a lump sum payment to my family, what's the problem? Who is physically harmed in such a transaction?