Then I'll break it down for you further. 1. According to your theory, the privileges-and-immunities clause refers to the Bill of Rights. 2. The Bill of Rights includes the prohibition against denying anyone life, liberty, or property without due process of law. 3. Putting 1 and 2 together, the P&I clause would include that same prohibition against denying life, liberty, or property without due process of law, according to your theory. 4. Keeping 3 in mind, it would then make absolutely no sense to follow up on that clause by saying, "nor shall any state deny to any person life, liberty or property without due process of law," as the 14th amendment does.
Get it now?
The 14th was meant to prevent states from violating individual rights, whether enumerated or unenumerated by the BOR's. - Get it? -- There was no 'somebody' - intending to do any more than that, -- as proved by the historical record.
97 posted by tpaine
Then I'll break it down for you further. 1. According to your theory, the privileges-and-immunities clause refers to the Bill of Rights.
-- Nope. The whole of Section 1 applies to the BOR's, as the historical record proves. It is not just 'my' theory.
2. The Bill of Rights includes the prohibition against denying anyone life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
And 'Barron v Baltimore' ruled that the BOR's did NOT apply to the states. The 14th corrects that mistake.
3. Putting 1 and 2 together, the P&I clause would include that same prohibition against denying life, liberty, or property without due process of law, according to your theory.
Your 'theory' of 'my theory' is an incorrect view of the facts, as shown above.
4. Keeping 3 in mind, it would then make absolutely no sense to follow up on that clause by saying, "nor shall any state deny to any person life, liberty or property without due process of law," as the 14th amendment does. Get it now?
Obviously, you don't. -- Your misconceptions about the history of the 14th, and its purpose, - [you seem to be convinced that 'someone' had an evil intent in its framing] -- are leading you to making nonsensical nitpicking conclusions.