It was enacted, because the southern states were trampling on the rights of a minority of their citizens. Perhaps you missed that point. The 14th was intended to put a stop to it.
"why did our founders not install its language in the original bill of rights?"
The States at that time had their own as far as a majority of folks were concerned. They still owned PEOPLE and considered them PROPERTY. They also screwed the Cherokee.
Thomas Jefferson understood what you do not....
...
"Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808)."
Seems ole TJ didn't mind the States violating the principles behind the first Amend. In particular religious freedom and free exercise thereof. The 14th made way for the correction.
"In American federalism, the rights of the individual are secured through the strict limits imposed on the power of the central government by a Bill of Rights and the division of authority between autonomous states and a federal government. As Frank Chodorov wrote, States' Rights are "an essential Americanism. The Founding Fathers and the opponents of the Constitution agreed on the principle of divided authority as a safeguard to the rights of the individual
Chodorov is completely illogical. Historically the States failed to safeguard their citizens rights. The example I gave in the post you replied to was for defendants to have legal representation at trial. Various States failed to provide it. Perhaps you think due process and equal proteciton only applies to rich folks? Some folks more equal than others? How about the klan?
"If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect the individual from government, the 14th, in effect, defeated that purpose. What it did was to put the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be. "
Another Chodorov masterpiece? The States weren't bound by the Bill of Rights prior to the 14th and it showed. Regarless of the SCOTUS's piecemeal incorporation and spotty protection of rights, the 14th extended the Bill of Rights all the way down to the lowest local tyrant.
"Chodorov ... If a state wants to outlaw alcohol, then one can move to a state that doesn't. If a state wants to establish a religion, and its own constitution doesn't prohibit this, one can move to a state with a different constitution. Competition in government puts the brakes on folly and abuse and preserves freedom.
The competition in govm't is to make as many friggin' laws as they can. Folks will run out of places to run to. Besides that, a scheme like that, having a remedy to tyrany that amounts to rendering the oppressed refugees, just plain ole SUCKS.
"as Felix Morley observed in "Freedom and Federalism," it nullified "the original purpose of the Bill of Rights, by vesting its enforcement in the national rather than in the state governments." This just about renders asunder the Ninth and 10th amendments – what powers do the states retain if the federal government has gobbled them all up?
Poor friggin' States. Can't deny due process, equal protection, right to bear arms, freedom of speech, press, religion, trial by jury, ect. no more. Cry me a river!
"When the federal government became the arbiter of individual rights – freedom of religion included – the doctrine of limitation of powers was badly damaged"
The doctrine sucked in practice as far as rights protection went. Now there's meat in the Bill of Rights, because the BoRs was extended down to the lowest petty tyrant.
"government – especially centralized government – is the natural enemy of natural rights."
Yeah, Bull Connor's South was a real friend of rights for all their beloved citizens. Then there's the all the other nameless petty jackboots all over the country that got their "powers" nipped. Too bad.
"Why not just erase state lines and state legislatures and make this just one big area ruled by Washington D.C.? That is what the 14th amendment is pushing towards."
The 14th extends rights protections, it does nothing else.
No 'if' about it. Article VI makes clear that ALL of the Constitution & its Amendments are the supreme law, and that ALL officials, fed & state are bound by oath to support it.
the 14th, in effect, defeated that purpose. What it did was to put the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be.
All officials, fed, state, or local, have the power to enforce Constitutional law, -- and the duty to resist unconstitutional laws.
Naturally, states can just as well violate individual rights. But, as Chodorov highlighted, there is no monopoly power behind a state's action. If a state wants to outlaw alcohol, then one can move to a state that doesn't. (That's one way for state legislators to ensure that their states will be as densely populated as the moon.) If a state wants to establish a religion, and its own constitution doesn't prohibit this, one can move to a state with a different constitution. Competition in government puts the brakes on folly and abuse and preserves freedom.
It is folly to advocate that people should move if States 'powers' violate human rights.
The 14th Amendment violated this balance, or as Felix Morley observed in "Freedom and Federalism," it nullified "the original purpose of the Bill of Rights, by vesting its enforcement in the national rather than in the state governments." This just about renders asunder the Ninth and 10th amendments – what powers do the states retain if the federal government has gobbled them all up?
Gobbled? - Hype. --- States & or the people retain their powers, -- they can simply refuse to support unconstitutional acts made by fed or local legislators, and fight such infringements in court or through civil disobedience and jury nullification.
They have always had these powers, which will never be lost, as our basic rights/powers cannot be amended away..