It does not mean that. Article IV Section 2 had just preceded it, and that said they could not do that. If a majority of congress was all that was necessary to override this law, it could have been done decades earlier.
As for Article IV, Section 2 slaves fleeing to non-slave states might be returned but moving with your slaves to a non-slave state would mean your slaves were emancipated.
And how do you get that interpretation out of Constitutional clause specifically requiring them to be returned back to the service of to whomever their labor is due according to the laws of one of the states?
Where is this magical "they are emancipated!" clause?
Under the Confederate constitution people could move to any state with their slaves and keep them.
Under a correct interpretation of our constitution at the time, they could do so in the US as well. They just made certain that the law was much clearer in their version. It gives liberal judges less wiggle room to pretend the law means something else when you spell it out with such specificity.
If slavery is illegal in the state then you cannot move there with your slaves. Not hard at all to understand.
Are you going to throw the Slave owner in Jail? Because you still legally can't free his slave(s). The Constitution has no provision for you to do so. It doesn't allow it. You either have to break the constitution, or any such penalty has to be something other than freeing the slave(s).
George Washington kept moving his slaves in and out of Pennsylvania. He only moved them out of the state out of respect for their time limit on how long a slave could stay there, and I think he only respected their time limit because he wanted to avoid antagonizing people, but he did in fact show contempt for the idea of a state being a "free" state.
And yet when the time came Chief Justice Chase did not dismiss the charges against Davis on the grounds that his actions were not illegal. He had to resort to a loophole using the 5th Amendment and double jeopardy.
He was on Lincoln's side. He did not want to be placed in the position of being forced to try that case on it's merits, because he had already acknowledged that it would have condemned the actions of the North.
Johnson Amnestied Davis and the rest. Maybe Chase sent him word.
Nor is it intended two. One clause refers to fugitives, which is a lot different that residents. States can outlaw slavery within their border and Congress can outlaw slavery in the territories. But if a fugitive, be they runaway slave or common criminal, is apprehended then they are returned to the state they fled from. If someone moves into the state or territory where slavery is illegal then they can't bring their slaves there. It's as simple as that.
And how do you get that interpretation out of Constitutional clause specifically requiring them to be returned back to the service of to whomever their labor is due according to the laws of one of the states?
Not hard at all. You seem to be ignoring the phrase "under the laws thereof". If slavery is legal in Kentucky and a slave flees to Indiana, where slavery is not, then that slave is returned to Kentucky if apprehended. If someone moves from Kentucky to Indiana then "under the laws thereof" in Indiana the slave is freed since slavery is illegal. Simple as that.
Under a correct interpretation of our constitution at the time, they could do so in the US as well.
Under your interpretation. That doesn't automatically make your opinion the correct interpretation.
Are you going to throw the Slave owner in Jail? Because you still legally can't free his slave(s).
Sure they could, under the laws of the state.
The Constitution has no provision for you to do so.
Actually it does under the 10th Amendment.
George Washington kept moving his slaves in and out of Pennsylvania.
Because under Pennsylvania law at the time, slave owners could temporarily reside in the commonwealth with their slaves. However, if they became permanent residents then the slaves were freed.
He was on Lincoln's side. He did not want to be placed in the position of being forced to try that case on it's merits, because he had already acknowledged that it would have condemned the actions of the North.
He was on Lincoln's side when he made the original statement. By your interpretation Chief Justice Chase should have thrown the whole matter out of court on day one. But he didn't.
It's astonishing to see DiogenesLamp here attempt to use one of the stronger arguments against his position to support it.
He claims that despite President Washington's obvious respect for Pennsylvania's abolition laws, yet Washington "did in fact show contempt" for them.
Washington showed no such "contempt", but strictly obeyed the letter of Pennsylvania abolition laws.
That makes DiogenesLamp's claims on this subject bogus.