Replies

14A has certainly been violated with disastrous results, as has the Commerce Clause. Since Wickard, the CC has been fraudulently used to basically nullify the Tenth and allow fedgov control of health care, crime issues, environment, education etc. In addition, anti-RKBA laws are passed under the Wickard CC.

However, none of that changes the original intent of either the Commerce Clause or 14A.

Which brings me back my point about what the terms Privileges and Immunities of US citizens meant at the time of the 14th's ratification. It is the key to understanding the 'P or I' Clause, and has still not been addressed. What does Bork say about the meaning of Privileges and Immunities of US citizens, as the terms were understood in the late 1860s?

Well, if you are asking about the general understanding of the P&I Clause before the 14A, Bork says, "Most people have always thought that the article IV clause simply prevented a state from discriminating against out-of-staters in favor of their own citizens" (R. Bork, The Tempting of America at 181).

If you are asking what the P&I Clause was intended to mean in the 14A, as quoted on what I posted to you, Bork says this about the P&I Clause: "One would not expect ratifying conventions to enact a constitutional provision they intended to mean nothing. But that hardly solves the problem, and the problem is that we do not know what the clause is intended to mean.

So his point is judges should not insert their own personal moral viewpoints of what THEY think a clause should mean where they have no guidance from original understanding of the text. He therefore approved Justice Miller's judicial restraint and "sound judicial instinct" in doing just that.