[DiogenesLamp]

The Salient aspect of this clause of the constitution is "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof"

It cannot be just waved away without deliberately violating the intent expressed in this constitutional clause.

But I am well familiar with the phenomena of people who see nothing wrong with ignoring aspects of constitutional law they don't like. The proper way to deal with it is to change it through the amendment process, not to pretend it doesn't exist.

[DoodleDawg]

The Salient aspect of this clause of the constitution is "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof"

They weren't held in labor, or labour, because they had been freed.

But I am well familiar with the phenomena of people who see nothing wrong with ignoring aspects of constitutional law they don't like.

And I'm familiar with the similar situation of people who have only the sketchiest idea of what the Constitution said.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The Salient aspect of this clause of the constitution is "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof"
It cannot be just waved away without deliberately violating the intent expressed in this constitutional clause."

But the fact remains, regardless of how often you deny it, that Founders themselves did not understand any aspect of the Constitution to prevent states from abolishing slavery, at will.
Constitutionally, fugitive slaves were one thing, slaves moved permanently to a free-state were something else altogether.

DiogenesLamp: "But I am well familiar with the phenomena of people who see nothing wrong with ignoring aspects of constitutional law they don't like."

Or even more, with people like DiogenesLamp imposing meanings on Founders' words which Founders themselves never intended.