how do you figure it interpreted law exactly as Founders had written
you clearly don’t seem to believe in the concept of “original intent” in the Constitution seeing how the founders behave before and after they wrote the Constitution
Since the founders have been banning slavery in the territories with Northwest ordinances before The Constitution
they prohibited the import of slaves in the Constitution
and the same founders were prohibiting slavery in some territories and States after the Constitution
the founders regulating slavery all over the place
the Founders demonstrated over and over and over again before during and after the writing of the Constitution that they thought it was inside their rights to regulate and restrict slavery wherever they saw fit
the only place they didn’t think they had the right to do was touch slavery inside a state that already had it
It was the Supreme Court that all of a sudden steps in and says no you can’t
Dred Scott was the Roe v Wade of his day a completely invented right
a slave owner had no more right to expect this slave claim to be honored in a free state let alone expect the federal to enforce his claim in a free state....
Then a gay marriage in a gay marriage state should be forced to be honored in a non gay marriage States
that is until then Supreme Court stepped in and impose gay marriage on all of us that was another Dred Scott like activist decision
it’s a total joke to say The South was for states rights when they’re expecting the federal to go around imposing slave states will on free states
speaking of states rights.. if a slave state lets say Virginia decided for whatever reason it wanted to end slavery... under Dred Scott they couldn’t do it ... so much for states rights and freedoms
you seem to adopt this attitude that if one state wanted slavery the other all the other free states had to respect and enforce it inside their and the federal had to enforce it inside all federal territories.... it that’s not state rights
Because this is what the founders wrote into the US Constitution in Article IV, Section 2.
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.
That "in consequence of any law or regulation therein" is pretty all encompassing. It means that even if a state legislature abolishes slavery in that state, they still have to return slaves back to their masters.
Not only did the founders write it, but all the state legislatures agreed to it, binding their state to it's terms in perpetuum.
Now was Dred Scott attempting to escape slavery as a consequence of a law or regulation in another state?
Now rather than answer the other points you put forth, I'm going to let you think about what I told you, because based on what you have written, you seem unaware that that clause was part of the Constitution at the time.
Actually the citizens and or legislatures of a slave state could vote to outlaw slavery in that state. The Supreme Court recognized that as a right reserved for the state. The Federal Government could not interfere with those decisions. This is one reason Lincoln took no direct action against MO, KY, MD, or DE. to end slavery in their states. He badgered them, cajoled them, even tried forms of bribery to get them to outlaw slavery. Only MO and MD would outlaw slavery before the end of the Civil War. KY and DE would not end slavery until the 13th Amendment was ratified.