Forget the fact she may or may not have been a relative of a former slave, forget that she may live in what could have been described as a "Free State" and that she was not a fugitive slave (therefore Dred Scott would not apply). The key issue is that Article V describes the means to change the Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
So, under the power granted by the above Article, Slavery was abolished under the XIII Amendment:
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.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
As if that were not enough, the XIV and XV Amendments were passed to make sure all citizens were allowed to vote and were entitled to the same protections and Rights under the Constitution regardless of race. Finally Whoopie, you were given the right to vote under the XIX Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
So a strict reading of the Constitution not only ensures you cannot ever be a slave, Whoopie Goldberg, but that you have the same protections as the rest of us. It is only the so-called "living document" interpretation that can take away your rights. The Liberal view that we should base our Constitution and its interpretation on current international law is a path to taking away your rights. What if "current international law" favors Islamic Shari'a? Good luck with that.
Only a strict interpretation of the letter of the Constitution protects your rights.
Prove me wrong.