He clearly says the USA is like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

No, he clearly doesn't. Even if you completely ignore the context of the entire speech, which you obviously wish to do, what he says is that what these few Americans have done is like what was done by Nazis, Soviets, etc. If you take into account the context, like any person arguing in good faith should do, then it is obvious that what Durbin is saying is that it is the unilateral decision by the Bush Administration (particularly Rumsfeld) to stray from American values, which is the problem, not American values themselves. His speech is in fact the antithesis of anti-Americanism.

And no, I don't believe that he was worried about making America better he was making those statements as a means of attacking his political opponents.  That's not the same thing at all.

This is nonsensical. By that logic, if Obama declared martial law and grabbed all your guns, then any Republican saying anything against it would be simply attacking a political opponent, not trying to really change anything? Anything said by any politician against a bad policy is just a means of attacking political opponents? Or does this only apply to Democrats attacking Republican policies?

So Fox News found a former Reagan-Bush Administration lawyer to defend Bush II's torture policies. Shocking.

Durbin retracted for the sake of comity.

 His mistake was thinking that the right has any sense of comity or decency, because they don't.

 There is no good faith on the right, as withnessed by their expressed hopes that the President of the US fails.

 You yourself are clear evidence of that, with your appalling excuses for those who call Obama Hitler, (if they do so in good faith it's okay) coupled with multiple excuses to justify torture as all American.

thinking would have resulted in a much less great union to begin with.

I disagree with your analysis here PF, it is a reasonable position, but the court ruled in a post war reconstructionist favor vancant of any constitutional basis.

The right of secession in the US goes to the very heart of how and who formed the United States.  John C. Calhoun in his work "Discourse on The Constitution and Government of the United States " lays out the argument that:

1) the United States is a federal, not national government.  It is a government representing a collective of states, each of which retains its own sovereignty.

2) The People established their respective states; the states established the federal government.

3) The United States government and the various states have a contractual arrangement (a compact to use Calhoun's word), when either violates the contract it can be nullified or terminated.

It was a ruling handed down by the Chase court, the guy who coincidently gave us our unconstitutional Federal Reserve Banking system as well, I could go on about all that, but I won't here unless you care to later.

Suffice it to say I will take the constitution, the clearly expressed wishes of the framers, and my rebel soul over an over active supreme court ruling any day.

"The denial of the right to secede from a voluntary union is itself a primary justification for secession"

President James Buchanan stated succinctly in a speech before Congress, December 1860 that the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal government the power to use force against a state:

"The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not 'necessary and proper for carrying into execution' any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.

Our very Declaration of Independence is a secessionist document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;  that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; and that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, to effect their safety and happiness.

Abraham Lincoln himself was a defender of secession at one point in his career:

Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one which suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own so much of the territory as they inhabit.

The Farmers like Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton wrote extensively and went s far as to write letters of reassurance stating the Federal Government is to remain restrained, and the States would be held in "loose hands".

We should not so much judge this on as they are, but how they should be, constitutionally speaking.

In closing think about these things.

1.  The Constitution was written under the principle of “positive grant.” What this means is quite simple. The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are “positively” “granted” to it by the Constitution. If a power is specifically listed in the Constitution, the federal government can do it - and vice versa.  This principle was so important to the founding fathers that they codified it in law as the 10th Amendment.

2.  The language of the 10th is clear and concise: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Thus, the federal government’s powers are limited to a specific set of activities – the rest is to be handled by the state government, or locally, by the people themselves.

3.  The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws.  It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters.  It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.

4.  If the Congress had been intended to carry out anything they claim would promote the “general welfare,” what would be the point of listing its specific powers in Article I, Section 8, since these would’ve already been covered?

5.  James Madison, during the Constitutional ratification process, drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress.  Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated.  In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.

6.  The Tenth Amendment was adopted after the Constitutional ratification process to emphasize the fact that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties; that they were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the federal government.  With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and illegal.

7.  Most importantly, though, we must keep in mind that the Founders envisioned a loose confederation of states – not a one-size-fits-all solution for everything that could arise.  Why?  The simple answer lies in the fact that they had just escaped the tyranny of a king who thought he knew best how to govern everything – including local colonies from across an ocean.

8.  Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. Second, the people of a state know what is best for them; they do not need bureaucrats, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives. Think about it.  If Hitler had ruled just Berlin and Stalin had ruled just Moscow, the whole world might be a different place today.

9.  A constitution which does not provide strict limits is just the thing any government would be thrilled to have, for, as Lord Action once said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

10.  Those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.

Anyway, I could go on a while, so I will end there unless you agian would like to continue.

 provides checks and balances, through various means.

One of them is the Supreme Court which is designated specifically to interpret the constitution as it applies to changing times. It should be more than obvious subtleties apply.

 Another is elections. IN case you hadn't noticed, generally your side lost.

 Nevermind that your side is using lawyers up the ying yang to obstruct Al Franken's victory in Minnesota. Do you think this is what the founders had in mind. 

 If Republicans lose elections they use the courts to overturn the results? While at the same time making claims that there are just too damn many lawyers?