You aren't the judge, and you aren't in a superior position of power over those who disagree with you.
You will have to content yourself to winning by making good arguments, though I wouldn't put much stock in your chances based on your past performance.
When I was a boy we learned there were "strict interpretations" and "loose interpretations" of the US Constitution, and the "loose interpretations" always won, making the constitution mean whatever "progressives" of the time wished.
And which is exactly what they had done to Article IV, Section 2. They interpreted it to mean something other than exactly what it said. What it said was that NO STATE LAW could interfere with returning a slave to his master, so long as that slave was held by the laws of other states.
No wiggle room there.
Anybody who reads your posts (or mine) judges whether you make sense or not.
I judge that there's nothing in your data or reasoning which even remotely supports the outrageous claims you present here.
DiogenesLamp: "And which is exactly what they had done to Article IV, Section 2.
They interpreted it to mean something other than exactly what it said.
What it said was that NO STATE LAW could interfere with returning a slave to his master, so long as that slave was held by the laws of other states.
No wiggle room there."
"No wiggle room", but only in your fantasies, applying long after the fact what you wish they had meant by their words.
What they actually meant they clearly showed in their words & actions after 1788, which in no way support your outrageous claims here.
Slave-holders, up to and including President Washington, respected and obeyed the abolition laws of Pennsylvania, and that's the bottom line, yours & Roger Taney's ridiculous opinions notwithstanding.