that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States" as referred to in the Fourteenth Amendment were understood as a class distinct from the privileges and immunities of "Citizens in the several States" as referred to in Article IV. Under this interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause as an "antebellum term of art", Slaughter-House is consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Roger Pilon, some of the framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause anticipated that it could protect (from state infringement) a broad range of rights far exceeding what had been enumerated in the Bill of Rights. However, as Pilon notes, that was often because of their interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the original unamended Constitution. Regarding that interpretation of the older clause, Justice Clarence Thomas has noted that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment realized the Supreme Court had not yet "undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities" in the original unamended Constitution. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment left that matter of interpretation in the hands of the judiciary. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago, Justice Thomas, while concurring with the majority in declaring the Second Amendment applicable to state and local governments, declared that he had reached the same conclusion only through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Legal scholar Randy Barnett argues that since no other justice, either in majority or dissent, attempted to question his rationale, this constitutes a revival of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In the 2019 case of Timbs v. Indiana where the court incorporated the Eighth Amendment against excessive fines against state governments, Justice Thomas again argued in a concurrence that the right should have been incorporated via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Justice Gorsuch also agreed in a separate concurrence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause "may well [have been] the appropriate vehicle for incorporation" In the 2020 case of Ramos v. Louisiana, Justice Thomas again argued in favor of the Privileges or Immunities Clause rather than the Due Process Clause. Redundancy issues One of the arguments against interpreting the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a requirement that the states comply with the Bill of Rights has been that such an interpretation would render the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment redundant,