Replies

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.

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

DiogenesLamp: "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."

We might note first that no American today spells the word "labour", rather "labor", and perhaps that hints at something regarding DiogenesLamp's birth-language.
He has, after all, sometimes suggested a difficulty understanding English.

But second and more important: all of DiogenesLamp's arguments are based on a false premise -- that the following Constitution words (Article 4, section 2) were intended by our Founders to refer to something other than Fugitive Slaves:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

In no writing, in the Constitution, Federalist Papers or elsewhere does any Founder suggest these words apply to anybody other than Fugitive Slaves.
The words certainly do not suggest that slave-holders may bring their slaves into Free States without being subject to the abolition laws of those states.
Nor did any Founder suggest that Federal government had no authority to restrict slavery in international trade or in US western territories.

So everything DiogenesLamp says here is pure fantasy within his own mind, having no relation to historical reality.

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

But the larger point has always been, from the beginning of this thread, that our FRiend DiogenesLamp is strictly delusional, consumed by fantasies not based in historical facts.