Do you really not understand the difference between explicit constraints on state action - which is what the 5th and 14th Amendment provide - and an affirmative obligation on states to do a particular thing? Really? If so, then you may really want to check this out:
Hank
It’s obvious that you’ve drunk the Ron Paul kool-aid, and have no conception of what natural, God-given, unalienable rights are.
All officers of government, at every level, in every branch, have the affirmative IMPERATIVE obligation to protect the lives of ALL innocent persons. It's their first and most important sworn duty.
And the Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that the States have the affirmative obligation to provide for the equal protection of the laws for EVERY person.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
But, since you're on a roll with this patent nonsense, I take it you apply the same "logic" to all unalienable rights, right? Not just the supreme right, the right to live?
If States want to, they can, under your rubric, deny the rights to free speech, freedom of the press, assembly, petition, the right to keep and bear arms, trial by a jury of your peers, parental rights, freedom of political association, etc. Right?