[robertpaulsen]

"Does it not seem absurd that the Constitution would require a state to entitle the citizens of other states to its privileges and immunities, but not its fundamental rights?"

Isn't that an application of federalism? Each state unique in the rights it protects and the laws it enforces?

Or does that make you uncomfortable?

Would you like just one set of rights and one set of rules for all 50 states? Hey, I've got an idea. Let's do that, then we'll have five justices interpret those rights for all of us, AND they'll also rule on the constitutionality of the laws that we all must obey!

And if we don't like it we can always move to another .... no, can't do that.

[Ken H]

Isn't that an application of federalism? Each state unique in the rights it protects

Every American is entitled to the protection of their inalienable rights, regardless of what State or local government say. You're on the wrong forum if you say otherwise:

Our Constitution explicitly restricts the power of our federal government; and our Bill of Rights guarantees that NO government may infringe upon our God given unalienable rights. - Jim Robinson, FR Mission Statement

and the laws it enforces?

Like health care, education, labor laws, poverty programs, etc.? Oh yeah, the "substantial effects" fraud put those in the hands of Congress and the federal courts.

Hypocrite.