We've covered this ground before and you know perfectly well what those words mean, but chose to lie about it.
In the years 1787, 1792 and even 1857 those words, regardless of what DiogenesLamp claims today, or what the Supreme Court declared in 1857, those words at the time only referred to Fugitive Slaves, they did not grant "rights" to slave-holders such as President Washington to bring their slaves permanently into non-slave states like Pennsylvania.
The rights of states to abolish or restrict slavery were respected by our most important Founder, George Washington, and that should establish Founders' Original Intent for all time, regardless of what DiogenesLamp likes to pretend today.
Indeed, there is no Founder -- none, zero, nada Founder -- DiogenesLamp can quote to support his ludicrous claim that the US Constitution forbids states from abolishing slavery within their own boundaries.
Yes, but isn't it so entirely liberal of DegenerateLamp to extrapolate and distort that meaning to provide cover for its agenda?
So you tell me, but how can a state enforce this interpretation? Can they legally bar slave owners from bringing their slaves into a state? Can they bar him from living on land he owns in the state? Can they bar him from using those slaves to work his land, you know, like George Washington did?
What is the state's recourse if a man simply says "your laws are unconstitutional and I refuse to abide by them?" Whether it's original intent was to deal exclusively with fugitive slaves, it's text requires that a slave be returned back to the person to whom the labor is due according to the laws of the state where he is held in labor.
People can claim a distinction, but the text of Article IV does not support this claim.
Oh, and states routinely violated the "fugitive slave" aspect too, so more or less they just didn't want to obey constitutional law.
The rights of states to abolish or restrict slavery were respected by our most important Founder, George Washington, and that should establish Founders' Original Intent for all time, regardless of what DiogenesLamp likes to pretend today.
He made a pretense of respecting Pennsylvania's law by rotating his slaves in and out of Pennsylvania every six months. But Pennsylvania still had slaves despite the state law. I suspect if they had grabbed one or more of his slaves, and if it had gone to Federal court, the court would have ruled that they have to give them back.
But George Washington was trying to strengthen the coalition, not tear it apart.
Indeed, there is no Founder -- none, zero, nada Founder -- DiogenesLamp can quote to support his ludicrous claim that the US Constitution forbids states from abolishing slavery within their own boundaries.
I don't have to quote George Washington, all I have to do is point out that his actions spoke louder than any words he may have said on the subject, and his actions contradict your claimed interpretation.