No, there isn't, and this is the flimsy structure on what this deliberate misleading of the law is built upon.
Anyone who believes that this language was intended to apply to slaves when it was written is lying to themselves. It is little different from declaring a transgender man to be a "woman", and then demand they get the privileges that a woman would get because they are a "woman."
Slaves were not equal in the understanding of that era and an attempt to claim the borrowed words from Thomas Jefferson created abolition in the state of Massachusetts is a lie.
That is not what the meaning was when that was written into the Massachusetts constitution. It was an after the fact effort to read into the words something that was never intended by the authors or those who approved the document.
My guess is that the Presiding Judge interpreted the Massachusetts Constitution exactly as the wording implied.
He interpreted it contrary to the intent of the framers by using a sophist tactic of wringing out the meaning he wanted out of the words, and deliberately ignoring the intent.
Yes, it's a noble idea to see things that way, but that is factually not the way the people of Massachusetts intended the words to be understood when they approved the Constitution. If it were so, it would have been called out to abolish slavery during the approval process.
‘That is not what the meaning was when that was written into the Massachusetts constitution. It was an after the fact effort to read into the words something that was never intended by the authors or those who approved the document”
And you know this how?