[robertpaulsen]

"Wouldn't the "privileges or immunities" clause explicitly extend the protection of the constitution?"

That was the thinking at the time -- the "privileges or immunities" clause would encompass the rights of the people and the states would then be obligated to protect those rights under the 14th.

That was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court the very first time it was tried in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873.

"How would natural rights, enumerated in the constitution, be subject to violation by other government entities?"

As you said, the BOR only applied to the federal government. The feds couldn't prohibit free speech, for example, but states could (if it wasn't protected by the state constitution).

This is called federalism. Or, I should say, it was called federalism.

[Ken H]

Q: Wouldn't the "privileges or immunities" clause explicitly extend the protection of the constitution?

rp: That was the thinking at the time -- the "privileges or immunities" clause would encompass the rights of the people and the states would then be obligated to protect those rights under the 14th.

Agreed. That was what the 14th was understood to mean at the time it was promulgated.

That was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court the very first time it was tried in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873.

IOW, the Court ruled against the original understanding.

[steve-b]

That was the thinking at the time -- the "privileges or immunities" clause would encompass the rights of the people and the states would then be obligated to protect those rights under the 14th.
That was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court the very first time it was tried in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873.

Judicial-activist legislation from the bench is not a new phenomenon.