[otterley]

The Privileges and Immunities clause has only been interpreted once by the Supreme Court and only (so far) protects the right to interstate travel (on your own two feet, BTW). It has never been held to forbid interstate taxation, and in fact, the right to interstate taxation was recently expanded in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018) when the Court was already conservative-leaning.

The plain text of the Constitution often does not mean what laypeople think it means.

[AdrianB1]

> The plain text of the Constitution often does not mean what laypeople think it means.

"We the people" does not seem to be written for Ivy League lawyers to understand and translate to laypeople. A Constitution written in a way that only a small percent of people are "trained" or "authorized" to understand or apply is a big time failure. Just sayin'

[mrguyorama]

The constitution was pretty clearly, from day one, written by educated 1%'ers, FOR educated 1%'ers. It was never meant to protect or privilege the laypeople except by accident and vague notions of "everyone deserves rights, except for those that improve self governance, only white landowners deserve that"

[PaulDavisThe1st]

The problem is not the way the Constitution is written. It's a bunch of people who think that their understanding of, for example, "Privileges and Immunities" is obviously correct.