It says nothing about time periods or cycling people in and out of jurisdiction. It simply says a laborer (slave) will be returned to the person to whom their labor is due. (Slave holder.)
Till that bit was amended, there was no legal way to ban slavery anywhere.
What happened was that all the states agreed to this, and then a bunch of states decided they didn't want to honor this agreement, and so they just ignored it, or asserted "States Rights", or some other such legalized excuse to break the agreement.
Total nonsense, the original Constitution did nothing of the sort.
It merely recognized that Fugitive Slaves must be returned to their "masters".
It said nothing to oppose abolition in Free States.
So all such interpretations as yours are pure Democrat judicial activism.
DiogenesLamp: "It simply says a laborer (slave) will be returned to the person to whom their labor is due. (Slave holder.)"
Read it again!
The reference is strictly and exclusively to "escaping" slaves, Fugitive Slaves, not to slaves transported by their holders into Free States, nor to former slaves lawfully declared "freed".
Neither the Constitution nor any Founder attempted to infringe the rights of states to abolish slavery, in whole or in part, immediately or gradually, with whatever restrictions they might wish on the transport of slaves through their territories.
But that's just what Democrat Roger Taney overturned with typical Democrat judicial activism, and which overturn you modern-day pro-Democrats are now hoping to sell to conservatives.
Not buying it, not now, not ever, FRiend.