My contention is that since the phrase can mean absolutely anything, it means nothing.
I belive that people should be allowed to make their own laws through the democratic process -- not have some judge decide what's good for them. If we allow judges to use "privileges and immunities" to overturn laws, we have given up government by the people and have accepted government by the judges.
The point is, that since none of us can make a list of "privileges and immunities", we're in no position to argue with a judge when he imposes his will on us by claiming that he has discovered a "privilege" or an "immunity" that is infringed by a law the people have passed.
Sorry, but we have a clear historical record of what the phrase means. Your attempts to emit a cloud of Clintonesque semantic obfuscation are unavailing.
The Founders of the American Republic clearly rejected such notions in favor of a rule of law which bound the majority as firmly as it bound any individual.
What, exactly, do you think ought to happen if 50%+1 of the electorate votes for a blatantly un-Constitutional infringement of the rights of the other 50%-1? Should the Constitution be ignored? Should there be armed revolt? What?
But the phrase "privileges and immunities" does not appear solely in the 14th Amendment - it also appears in body of the text itself. To wit, Article 4, Section 2:
"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
If the phrase is "meaningless", why would the founders have seen fit to include it at all? Isn't it really more likely that they understood it to have some meaning, even in the absence of a complete and exhaustive definition of what those privileges and immunities are? Are the rights listed in the Bill of Rights not among the privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens?