Vibe has it right, and so does Wikipedia. The Slaughterhouse cases are a joke, and the legal community knows it.
If I brought some otherwise-legit case before SCOTUS, and the govt said, "speedrrracer should lose this case because of this precedent from Slaughterhouse", the SCOTUS justices would bitchslap the govt in a heartbeat.
Basing anything off Slaughterhouse is a bad idea. The best you'd get is SCOTUS trying to give a little respect and give it the treatment like Miller got in Heller, where SCOTUS would pigeonhole it and say something like, "Slaughterhouse only means X in circumstance Y, and has no other value".
I will grant you that if some case arose which was politically unpleasant to the SCOTUS justices, and they needed Slaughterhouse to justify an otherwise clearly unconstitutional decision, they would not hesitate to use it to serve their ends. Legal yoga is the primary function of SCOTUS, not accurately interpreting the Constitution.
On an unrelated note, I wanted to add that I also enjoy your '101' threads -- keep 'em up!