[Antonello]

They did. The provisions of the 1866 Civil Rights Act are what were understood at the time to be "privileges & immunities" issues and due process issues.

Then why did they write "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" instead of "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 1866 Civil Rights Act"? You are attempting at least as much activist interpretation as you are accusing others of doing.

Never in their wildest dreams did the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment think they were making the 1st Amendment applicable against the states.

That has already been shown to be incorrect.

[puroresu]

#####Then why did they write "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" instead of "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 1866 Civil Rights Act"? You are attempting at least as much activist interpretation as you are accusing others of doing.#####


Because the 1866 Civil Rights Act was a statute and thus could be repealed. Putting something in the Constitution makes things more permanent. In addition, the 14th would have "constitutionalized" additional future legislation on the same issues.

####That has already been shown to be incorrect.####

Sorry, but it hasn't.

[donh]

Never in their wildest dreams did the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment think they were making the 1st Amendment applicable against the states.

So I assume then that the Southern states can legally re-institute slavery under the 14th amendment.

[connectthedots]

It's the Civil Rights Act of 1871, not 1866.