Is that more of your god-like powers of declaratioin, or simply a weak, pathetic, unsupported-by-facts opinion??
It doesn't say "fugitive" and it doesn't say "slaves." It says anyone held to service by the laws of a state.
You may chose to interpret it very specifically and in a way that isn't actually written in there, but the gist of it is clearly that those who owe service by the laws of another state must be returned to the person to whom their labor is lawfully due.
Nobody, not even crazy Roger Taney himself, fantasized it referred to permanent residents in non-slave states.
I don't think it mentions "permanent", or "residents", or "non slave states." Those terms are not in there. I think it applies to any place where the US Constitution holds jurisdiction.
Look, if people don't want to be held to what is written, they shouldn't have agreed to it.
I don't think many courts accept the argument, "But Your Honor! That's not what I thought it meant!" The Judge will say "What is written in the contract is what will be applied. What you thought it meant is irrelevant."
Is that more of your god-like powers of declaratioin, or simply a weak, pathetic, unsupported-by-facts opinion??
It's more of not putting stuff in there that isn't written in there.