Replies

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.

I'm simply asking what Bork believes 'Privileges and Immunities' of US citizens meant at the time the 14th was ratified, not what the Clause itself means.

For example, Justice Thomas goes into detail with extensive references to define those terms in the 2 cases I linked. The Heritage Foundation gives a definition that is consistent with J. Thomas =>

"Privileges and immunities" constituted a summary of ancient rights of Englishmen that the colonists fought to maintain during the struggle against the mother country.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/4/essays/122/privileges-and-immunities-clause

Does Judge Bork provide a definition, and if so, what does he say?