I think Article IV, section 2 clearly qualifies as that.
No such language is found in the Constitution. Since slavery is not protected by the Constitution, states were free to outlaw the institution.
I recently had an exchange of messages with someone on another website who said that court cases were moving in the direction of making it difficult to outlaw slavery in free states. I've already voiced my opinion on the difficulty of banning slavery in free states because of the "privileges and immunities" clause, as well as the 5th amendment protections against taking without just compensation.
From what the fellow was telling me, court cases of that era were moving towards the "you cannot prohibit slavery in free states" position.
Outlawing slavery does not absolve a state from the Constitutional requirements of Art IV section 2.
Clearly, and therein lies the rub. Unless you violate "privileges and immunities", you can't prohibit someone from coming into your state with their slaves. Furthermore, unless you violate the fifth amendment, you cannot take away their slaves for being in your state.
It was only indulged because nobody pushed it into this sort of legal fight.
court cases of that era were moving towards the “you cannot prohibit slavery in free states” position
To my knowledge, before 1860 no such ruling was ever issued by any court in the U.S. If you can cite such a case, would appreciate it.
Even the Supreme Court recognized the legal existence of “Free” states in the Scott v. Sanford.
“you can’t prohibit someone from coming into your state with their slaves.
To live there, Yes you can. If slavery is illegal in New York State, you are not denying an Alabama slave owner any of the privileges or immunities that a citizen of New York State enjoys. He can buy land, own horses, sue in court, be tried by a jury, own fire arms etc, as any New York citizen. Since it is illegal for a New York citizen to keep a slave in the State of New York, the Alabama slave owner cannot keep a slave legally in New York State.
That does not violate the immunities and privilege’s clause