Are you contending slavery wasn't "legal"? Then why were these included:
"IV, 2, Clause 3: 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."
"I, 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
To term anti-slavery statues as 'prohibitive laws' is another example of specious wordplay.
So, you don't believe that anti-slavery statutes were prohibitions of owning slaves?
In 1850, citizens of the USA and living in Alabama did, according to the Constitution.
Fine, you argue that they did have that 'right'. I can't dispute your right to believe that, repugnant as it is to our Constitutions principles.
I don't know why you are having a hard time distinguishing between my critiquing your ideas, and being an advocate against them. Of course I don't support slavery, but that does not change the fact that it was legal under the Constitution, regardless of being morally and ethically abhorrent.
So you claim that your argument is solely a critique? Yet you conclude by arguing that slavery was a 'legal' right. Fine, play your word games.
Are you contending slavery wasn't "legal"?
I asked if you would have a 'right to own' human beings if the 13th Amendment did not exist. - You answered:
In 1850, citizens of the USA and living in Alabama did, according to the Constitution.