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.
Now you retort:
Was the ownership of slaves as property allowed under the Constitution or not? Clearly it was.
Did some States totally prohibit slavery or not? Clearly they did.
Laws forbidding violations of human rights do not deny a "right to own" a human being. A State cannot prohibit a right that does not exist, just as they have no delegated power to prohibit rights that do exist.
Therefore, are total prohibitions of the ownership of classes of property allowed to be enacted by States, or not?
Absurd reduction. Human beings are "classes of property"? No, the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.
Not one of the Framers contested a State's power do do so, that I can find. Indeed, they acknowledged it in Article IV, in the 3rd clause, which says slaves cannot avoid slavery by escaping into another jurisdiction where prohibitions exist.
It's understandable in that the founders were trying to hold together a shaky Republic by catering to slave owning autocrats. Why you want to argue for a 'right to own' human "classes of property" is beyond rational comprehension.
You sure are digging an amusing hole for yourself though.
You apparently have a great many problems with rational comprehension. Either that, or I must conclude that you are intentionally twisting my words. At no point did I argue for any such thing.
What I did argue was that States have the power to prohibit. I cited the prohibition of slavery by some States as an example of this power.
A State cannot prohibit a right that does not exist, ...
That is a tautology. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist to prohibit. Nevertheless, here is the Constitution prohibiting something that was perfectly legal across the South:
"Article XIII. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." [bold added]
slav·er·y
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
No, the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.
If it is a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property", which of these were abridged by the total prohibition found in the 13th A.? Note that while it took an Amendment for the Federal Government to do this, States had done the same for some time.