I'm asking you if that is what it means. Unless my English is faulty, I read it as a rendering null any state law designed to free a slave.
If you do not think that is what it means, why don't you explain to me what you think it means?
But the truth of this matter has already been explained to you several times, by myself and others.
You simply refuse to acknowledge it.
The Constitution in those days provided for the return of Fugitive Slaves.
It also contemplated the eventual abolition of slavery, beginning with stopping imports from abroad.
But no Founder contemplated slave-holders taking their slaves to Free States without being subject to the abolition laws of that state.
So, if you decide -- using your own vast imagination and Roger Tanney's Dred-Scott decision -- that the Constitution made slavery lawful in every state, regardless of the state's own laws, then your interpretation is simply not historical, or logical, Tanney notwithstanding.
If you further decide, in support of Tanney's Dred Scott, that not just slaves but all African Americans could never be US citizens, then I'd say you truly are ready for commitment to an institution for nut-cases, FRiend.