More DL BS I see. Let's look at that clause in Section 2:
"No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
So what does that mean? If means that if a slave escapes and runs away to a free state that they are still a slave, regardless of what the laws of the state may say. Fair enough. If apprehended by the local authorities the slave must be extradited to his home state. Fair enough. But I don't see the part where it was the duty of the state to apprehend those slaves. Runaway slave laws were federal laws. It was up to the federal government to enforce, not the states. So your claim that the states broke constitutional law by refusing to apprehend runaways is nonsense. How can they break a law they were not required to enforce?
“If apprehended by the local authorities the slave must be extradited to his home state.”
Not correct. The slave must be turned over to the owner when and if the owner or his agent comes forward to claim the slave. It is the responsibility of the owner or agent to return the slave to the state from which he escaped, not the state in which the slave was apprehended. If the owner or owner’s agent does not make a claim for a fugitive slave, the state is required to do nothing.