Here's a very nice addition to an older discovery....

“…We shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political rights of the states composing the union–in recalling your attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy, we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent and unalienable–so recognised by all our fundamental laws.

   “The constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights, or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but protect and secure them against any violation by the legislatures or courts, in making, expounding or administering laws...."

“. . . Jack was the property of the plaintiff, who had a right to possess and protect his slave or servant, whom he had a right to seize and take away to his residence in New Jersey by force, if force was necessary, he had a right to secure him from escape, or rescue, by any means not cruel or wantonly severe–he had a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either; he had a right to come into the state and take Jack on Sunday, the act of taking him up and conveying him to the Billet, was no breach of the peace if not done by noise and disorder, occasioned by himself or his party–and their peaceable entry into the house of Mrs. Kinderdine was lawful and justifiable, for this purpose, in doing these acts, they were supported by laws which no human authority could shake or question.”--U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Circuit Court of The United States, [PENNSYLVANIA APRIL TERM 1833 BEFORE Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Hon JOSEPH HOPKINSON District Judge, Johnson v. Tompkins(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]