[Ditto]

Article IV says states have to respect other states slave laws. I take that to mean that in a contest between freedom laws of a free state, and slave laws of a slave state, the slave laws must always prevail.

What is that, the famous Heads I Win, Tails You Lose clause in the Constitution?

Again, you seem to be under the impression that Scott sued for his freedom in a free state. He did not. He was taken by his owner into both a free state, and free territory, lived there for years, even married and had a child there and was then returned by his owner to the slave state of Missouri. He sued in Missouri court for his freedom, and under well recognized Missouri law was awarded his freedom under the doctrine of "once free, always free."

[rockrr]

You’re forgetting about the notorious slaver “neener neener, crossed my finger” clause ;’)

[DiogenesLamp]

What is that, the famous Heads I Win, Tails You Lose clause in the Constitution?

That is exactly what it seems to be when you analyze the larger consequence of it. It does indeed appear to create and maintain a disadvantage in the law towards people who wish to abolish slavery in their state.

When you have a clause that specifically says there can be no state laws interfering with the labour owed by the laws of another state, that pretty much torpedoes any means of freeing a slave who was born subject to another state's laws.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that Scott sued for his freedom in a free state

I am under the impression that it is irrelevant to the larger point.