He seemed to be saying the clause didn't apply to anyone - black or white: 'Clause is inscrutable and should be treated as if it had been obliterated by an ink blot.' (see footnote in J.Thomas's dissent in Saenz v Roe).
I would like to know how he defines Privileges and Immunities in this context.
The meaning becomes clear and simple if Privileges and Immunities are understood to mean fundamental rights common to all citizens, as Thomas argues. It means that states may not infringe the fundamental rights of any citizen, and such laws are in conflict with the Constitution. Anything more or less is not in keeping with the original intent.
Under Bork's interpretation, a state could disarm its citizens and it would be entirely constitutional. He presumably would have joined the liberals on the Court in the Heller and McDonald cases, thus voting against Thomas, Scalia, et al.
Upon re-reading Heller - Bork probably would have voted with Thomas and Scalia since it involved fedgov, rather than states. My bad.
Yes, but you miss some important issues.
1) States are local governance, governed by the people of the state through the ballot by representation and directly by initiative and propositions. The majority of people of a given state are in control of what that state does as long as the feds don't interfere.
2) History shows it is the FEDS who impose noxious and unconstitutional requirements on the states. History also shows that the states, left alone, generally are in harmony with the rights and freedoms of individuals. Easiest example is abortion. Before 1973, the states generally prohibited abortion. It was SCOTUS and their application of the 14A against the states that outlawed state anti-abortion laws, allowing the infanticide of some 70 million unborn. Another easy example is currently, the greatest pressure against gun ownership isn't the states, it's the feds.
3) The freedom of states to run their own show, generally, is much more in line with the constitutional design of federalism. And, again, history tells us that the chances of a state disarming its citizens is much less likely than the feds forcing disarmament using the 14A as their club.
Yes, Bork says that the intent of the P&I clause in the 14A is not understood which is basically what Justice Miller said. So both are on solid constitutional ground. You're concerned about the consequences, but consequences are not the driving force of construction, whereas original understanding and intent are. Consequences are more of a sanity check in the light of original intent and understanding.
Here, the consequences are sublime in that the states represent smaller and more local and responsive governance keeping the federal government at bay and presumably within its constitutional limits where it belongs. Again, our greatest threat by far in this country is not the states, it is the $4 trillion bloated unconstitutional federal government that threatens out free way of life.