The argument is not about the historical definition of P&I. It is about what and how it was intended to mean and be used in the 14A. The P&I of Article IV is not so much about what P&I itself is so much as the P&I in one state is valid for out-of-staters. Beyond this, you guys are displaying a "fundamental" flaw of understanding a basic presumption of the Constitution.
The original body of the Constitution doesn't name specific "rights" or P&I's. It is well understood that those rights named in the so-called "Bill of Rights" were listed only to appease the anti-federalists so the Constitution could be ratified. Whatever rights, powers, and liberties not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution or forbidden to the states by it belongs to "the States and the people respectively." The ninth and tenth amendments confirm that.
So the effort to define P&I is inconsistent with the whole presumption of the Constitution, that as far as the Constitution is concerned, all rights not delegated or forbidden belong to the states and the people. They don't have to be listed nor should they be listed because as far as the Constitution is concerned those rights and P&I's are none of the feds business. Only discrimination of P&I by one state upon non-state citizens is a concern of the federal government.
You and Thomas want to ratify the "fundamental" rights in Corfield v. Coryell which is pure conjecture which the single Justice of the Supreme Court as much as admitted in his opinion, which evidently the drafters but not the ratifiers wanted to use in the 14A. We've already been over that.
There is no proof that is what the ratifiers intended by P&I. Your conjecture is as good as mine, that the ratifiers meant nothing more than to confirm former slaves had the same P&I as understood in Article IV among the states as any other U.S. citizen. In the sense of probability, mine is much more likely than yours because yours would have resulted in a Constitutional revolution of which there would have been some record of the debates and discussions that would have ensued. We've already been over this also.
Yes it is.
It is about what and how it was intended to mean and be used in the 14A.
You can't possibly make an informed opinion on what and how a clause was intended to mean and be used without understanding the terms used in the text of the clause itself.
So the effort to define P&I is inconsistent with the whole presumption of the Constitution, that as far as the Constitution is concerned, all rights not delegated or forbidden belong to the states and the people. They don’t have to be listed nor should they be listed because as far as the Constitution is concerned those rights and P&I’s are none of the feds business.
That is not so if there is an amendment which says otherwise.
You and Thomas want to ratify the “fundamental” rights in Corfield v. Coryell which is pure conjecture which the single Justice of the Supreme Court as much as admitted in his opinion, which evidently the drafters but not the ratifiers wanted to use in the 14A.
How do you know what the ratifiers thought? Bork says it was 'less clear' and there was 'no evidence' the ratifiers agreed with the drafters.
Presumably, the ratifiers read the senate debates and knew the intent of the drafters. Given that they still voted to ratify, the burden is on you to show that they disagreed with the drafters on what the Clause meant.