and the conservatives on the court are textualists and our originalist. and the problem we are facing is that as such they have to make sense of the text that is staring them in the face. or 150 years now, they have ignored that text. it is as though it did not exist, and so if you're going to be a textualists, there is the text that says that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. and it has been in effect in operative for all this time. it surely is, therefore, i reasoned that it is not mere surplusage. and so conservatives who purport to be textualists are going to have to make sense of just why it is there. and better since i submit than the slaughterhouse case made of the matter and what they have to do to do that is to go back to the history of it, which all three of our speakers today have eloquently discussed. and when they do come it seems to me that the statements that justice scalia has made will perhaps come in for some reconsideration, at least one would hope that they do. next question. right he

the conservatives on the court our textile --u are --alist -- textualists. they have to make sense of the text staring them in the face. for 150 years, they have ignored that taxed as if it did not exist. there is the text that says that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. and it has been inoperative for all this time. it is surely there for reason. it is not there for surplusage. those who want to be t extualists must look at this. they have to do this and go back to the history of it, which all three of our speakers today have eloquently discussed, and when they do, it seems to me the statement that justice scalia has made will perhaps come in for some reconsideration. one would hope that they do. right here. [inaudible] >> i am unaffiliated. it seems to me that you're saying that if the court reconsiders the privileges and immunities clause, you are opening a pandora's box. you did not really explain why. >> that is the concern. i am saying it is not opening a pandora's box. it is done properly, it will ac

the conservatives on the court our textile --u are --alist -- textualists.ve to make sense of the text staring them in the face. for 150 years, they have ignored that taxed as if it did not exist. there is the text that says that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. and it has been inoperative for all this time. it is surely there for reason. it is not there for surplusage. those who want to be t extualists must look at this. they have to do this and go back to the history of it, which all three of our speakers today have eloquently discussed, and when they do, it seems to me the statement that justice scalia has made will perhaps come in for some reconsideration. one would hope that they do. right here. [inaudible] >> i am unaffiliated. it seems to me that you're saying that if the court reconsiders the privileges and immunities clause, you are opening a pandora's box. you did not really explain why. >> that is the concern. i am saying it is not opening a pandora's box. it is done properly, it will actually c

the conservatives on the court our textile --u are --alist -- textualists.they have to make sense of the text staring them in the face. for 150 years, they have ignored that taxed as if it did not exist. there is the text that says that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. and it has been inoperative for all this time. it is surely there for reason. it is not there for surplusage. those who want to be t extualists must look at this. they have to do this and go back to the history of it, which all three of our speakers today have eloquently discussed, and when they do, it seems to me the statement that justice scalia has made will perhaps come in for some reconsideration. one would hope that they do. right here. [inaudible] >> i am unaffiliated. it seems to me that you're saying that if the court reconsiders the privileges and immunities clause, you are opening a pandora's box. you did not really explain why. >> that is the concern. i am saying it is not opening a pandora's box. it is done properly, it will act