Replies

But permanent residence of slave-holders with slaves in free states was never considered acceptable before the 1857 SCOTUS Dred-Scott decision.

What has that got to do with what the law says? Sanctuary cities and medical marijuana is considered "acceptable", even though both are clear violations of federal law.

The fact that nobody was enforcing it led people to believe it was "acceptable" to ignore it, just as Liberal kooks are trying to do nowadays with illegal aliens and weed.

So, there's nothing to "grasp", you've simply misinterpreted Founders' Original Intent.

That is easy to do when no stretch of the words can comply with what you claim was their "intent."

Their "Intent" was to get the Southern states to sign on, and so they put in protections demanded by the Southern states, and they put them down in writing.

DiogenesLamp: "The fact that nobody was enforcing it led people to believe it was "acceptable" to ignore it, just as Liberal kooks are trying to do nowadays with illegal aliens and weed."

But it wasn't just a matter of "enforcement", but rather of interpretation, what did Founders' mean by their words?
Prior to 1857 nobody understood them to mean what Roger Taney and DiogenesLamp pretended they meant.

Remember, Founders' Original Intent defines the word "conservative", but if you proclaim yourself a flaming Liberal, then you are free to "interpret" the Constitution according whatever turns you on today, be that Dred-Scott or Roe v Wade.
Once you come out as a Liberal, then you can proclaim whatever-the-heck you wish.

But if you wish to be Conservative, then begin with Founders' Original Intent.
Actually, no, begin with the Bible, then go to Founders Intent, otherwise none of it will make sense.

Try it, you'll like it, I promise.