No "bait and switch" since the subject of state laws is addressed in my very next paragraph.
Read and comprehend, FRiend.
DiogenesLamp: "...STATES had to respect the constitutional requirement to return slaves to their masters.
I said that the wording in that clause of the constitution makes it virtually impossible to ban slavery."
And I reminded you, for the umpteenth time: that no Founder -- none, zero, nada -- ever made such a ludicrous argument, in either 1787 or any time later.
Instead, your argument was concocted out of thin air, just as more recent Supreme Court rulings have been concocted, and was in no way consistent with Founders' Original Intent.
DiogenesLamp: "My logic is based on the fact that they put those words in the US Constitution, and I can see no way a free state can get around them without violating that requirement."
But you cannot point to a single Founder who read our Constitution the way you read it, and therefore, by definition, your argument is bogus to the max.
DiogenesLamp: "A courtesy on his part.
I think had it gone to a Federal court, the court would have ruled he could do whatever he wanted because the State of Pennsylvania could not lawfully deprive him of his property."
But, of course, he never did that, doubtless because he had no desire or need to, and because no Founder ever expressed the view that states could not constitutionally abolish slavery.
So your argument, like the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, is pure fantasy and bogus to the max.
You aren't explaining how i'm wrong, you just keep asserting that it's "bogus to the max."
Whatever. I know from past experience that you like to get on the merry go round and go round and round in circles till we all feel like puking.
You are arguing that constitutional law must yield to state law, and that is just silly nonsense.