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.
That is a tautology. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist to prohibit.
How droll that you repeat my point, and then call it tautologous [repetitious].
Nevertheless, here is the Constitution prohibiting something that was perfectly legal across the South:
An Amendment forbidding slavery/involuntary servitude, - a violation of human rights, does not deny/prohibit a nonexistent "right to own" a human being.
"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."
AS we see , 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.?
There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read. Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected.
Keep digging.