All right then, what are those "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States"?
As "citizens of the United States" (not a particular state), those privileges and immunities have been narrowly defined in the Slaughter House Cases as not much more than “the prohibition against ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts.”
The court added, "Another privilege of a citizen of the United States is to demand the care and protection of the Federal government over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government. Of this there can be no doubt, nor that the right depends upon his character as a citizen of the United States. The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The right to use the navigable waters of the United States, however they may penetrate the territory of the several States, all rights secured to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations are dependent upon citizenship of the United States, and not citizenship of a State."
"One of these privileges is conferred by the very article under consideration. It is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bon a fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State. To these may be added the rights secured by the thirteenth and fifteenth articles of amendment, and by the other clause of the fourteenth, next to be considered."
The bottom line is this. The P&I Clause of the 14th offered very little protection from rights violations by the states. The P&I Clause was harmless to the concept of Federalism.
It was the Due Process Clause of the 14th that was perverted by the courts to selectively apply the BOR to the states, something the Founding Fathers never intended.
All right then, what are those "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States"?
To paraphrase what Justice Harlan once said:
--- 'The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Privilege & Immunities Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . ."
The bottom line is this. The P&I Clause of the 14th offered very little protection from rights violations by the states.
You wish this were so, paulsen; -- why is that?
The P&I Clause was harmless to the concept of Federalism. It was the Due Process Clause of the 14th that was perverted by the courts to selectively apply the BOR to the states, something the Founding Fathers never intended.
Again, -why- do you see requiring due process as being "perverted"?
It makes no sense to WANT a State to have the power to ignore due process.