Replies

According to your line of reasoning (that the prohibitions in this amendment only apply to the federal government) a US citizen can face double jeopardy in state courts, cannot "plead the fifth" in state courts, and can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a US state.

I will admit that this can get confusing.

Again, general limits on government power in the federal Constitution, such as the 5th A. provision that private land can be purchased by "the government" only for public use, apply only to the federal government, not to the state governments. This was emphasized by Chief Justice Marshall when the USSC decided Barron v. Baltimore (1833), a state eminent domain case.

"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. [...] If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states." --Chief Justice Marshall, Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Only when the federal Constitution explicitly prohibits or limits a given government power to the states, as examplified by Sec. 1 of the 15th A., are the states prohibited as well.

15th Amendment, Sec. 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

In fact, initially, only the federal government was required to respect personal privileges and immunities enumerated in the federal Constitution. This is what the private land owner Barron didn't understand. His 5th A. protections from the federal government did not apply to the states.

However...

The post Civil War 14th A. made it mandatory for the states to respect the personal protections of the federal Constitution as well.

But...

Regardless that the honest interpretation of the 14th A. makes it mandatory for the states to respect the personal protections of the federal Constitution, general prohibitions and limitations of government power by the federal Constitution still apply only to the federal government, not to the state governments. The 1st A.'s prohibition on federal power to regulate religion, for example, does not apply to the states, except by politically correct perversions of that amendment, although such power is now limited by the 14th Amendment.

So Baltimore would now have to pay Barron for his land, as opposed to not compensating him. But Baltimore still wouldn't need an excuse for buying his land; I actually don't know what eminent domain protections that Ohio has now.