[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?

[JeffAtlanta]

And by the way, as a libertarian, what's the problem with slavery?

What you described is not slavery.

[Modernman]

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?

Nothing wrong with such an arrangement. Professional athletes, for example, sign very similar contracts, albeit of much shorter duration. As for waiving legal rights? you can certainly do so, but that doesn't keep your employer from being charged with crimes if he holds you against your will, murders you etc.