This weakens your argument even more. The ambiguous 'privileges or immunities' did nothing to ensure any statute. Implanting the verbiage of 1866 Civil Rights Act into the 14th Amendment would have. Further, are you saying that they intended the 14th to be a 'back door' through which they could jam any old statue they pleased without requiring it to go through the amendment process? And you support this idea? And question my conservative nature?
Sorry, but it hasn't.
You are saying that announcing that the proposed amendment would explicitly extend enforcement of the Bill of Rights to include the states during the actual consideration of the amendment wouldn't have clued them in that it might cover the 1st Amendment?
#####The ambiguous 'privileges or immunities' did nothing to ensure any statute.#####
That's true. It's called leaving things to the legislative branch, which we used to do before the judicial oligarchy arose.
#####Implanting the verbiage of 1866 Civil Rights Act into the 14th Amendment would have.#####
It would have implanted that particular verbiage, but Congress obviously wanted the latitude for itself to make adjustments as needed.
#####Further, are you saying that they intended the 14th to be a 'back door' through which they could jam any old statue they pleased without requiring it to go through the amendment process? And you support this idea? And question my conservative nature?#####
Not just any old statute they pleased. It would have to be germane to the provisions of the 14th Amendment we've been discussing. Read the 14th. It says:
>>>>>The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.<<<<<
You may notice that Congress passed a lot of such legislation in that era to protect the privileges & immunities of, and to guarantee due process to, the freed slaves. They didn't pass a single piece of legislation to, for example, ban Bible readings in state schools, or remove crosses from city seals, etc. Obviously such legislation never crossed their mind under the 14th Amendment.
#####You are saying that announcing that the proposed amendment would explicitly extend enforcement of the Bill of Rights to include the states during the actual consideration of the amendment wouldn't have clued them in that it might cover the 1st Amendment?#####
Context, man, context! :-)
Bingham's statement needs to be considered in context. Read the section on the Doctrine of Incorporation in the link I provided to get an understanding of what Bingham meant.