[mrsmith]

" (or any other part of the U.S. Constitution)"

But the fourteenth is a cesspool. Texturally it imposes anything the feds want on the states. It's original intent is murky, with broad statements by it's enactors. What little I've seen of the ratifying debates in the states - the determining evidence per Madison- points to it's purpose being to end discrimination of rights instead. But the evidence is not clear to me at this point.

[robertpaulsen]

The 14th destroyed federalism. I would favor repeal, including the part that says if you cross the border, squat down and drop a baby, he's a U.S. Citizen.

[Iwo Jima]

Are there any constitutional rights in the BOR that have specifically been held to NOT have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment? Or are there just cases that say certain rights have been incorporated and no cases addressing certain rights?

Thank you in advance.

[tpaine]

A state can't violate the second amendment- it does not apply to the states except as it's considered a privelege or immunity under the 14th amendment.

-- the fourteenth is a cesspool.
Texturally it imposes anything the feds want on the states.

Not true. The 14th reiterates the Article VI fact that our supreme 'Law of the Land' [and its amendments] applies to all officials in the USA, fed/state/local, -- and to the laws they make & enforce.
All laws that could deprive "-- any person of life, liberty, or property, without due proccess --", would be null & void.

It's original intent is murky, with broad statements by it's enactors.

The congressional record of its enactment are clear, - it was intended to stop the still rebellious southern states from infringing on the individual rights of newly freed slaves.

What little I've seen of the ratifying debates in the states - the determining evidence per Madison- points to it's purpose being to end discrimination of rights instead. But the evidence is not clear to me at this point.

Read the Congressional debates. - Rep. Binghams remarks in particular.