I expect consistency. Inconsistency is never justice.
IF the 5th A. is incorporated under the 14th A., that is hardly the end of federalism but an example of “guaranteeing to the states a republican form of government” (Art.IV S.4), especially in the post-Civil War era. The 13th-15th Amendments do not mean that we have no individual rights other than not to be slaves.
I suppose that according to you, the states may take individual’s property without “just compensation” or indeed any compensation at all if a democratic majority wills it? Then what are we but slaves? But if you believe that the people have any of the individual rights expressed in the Bill of Rights (speech, religion etc.), then how do you and SCOTUS justify the inconsistency of picking and choosing?
Nonsense. You have just stated a contradiction in terms. A "republic" describes the distribution of power and authority. Rome had a republic, but never a word was said about unalienable rights. Protection for property rights has nothing whatever to do with the structure of government and the distribution of powers.
Strike one, and it was a whiffer.
The 13th-15th Amendments do not mean that we have no individual rights other than not to be slaves.
LOL, you still haven't read the article, thus displaying your ignorance. Beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which had already done for slaves what you describe, the true purpose of the 14th, according to one of its authors, was to empower corporations with the protections due to citizens.
Called strike two.
I suppose that according to you, the states may take individual’s property without “just compensation” or indeed any compensation at all if a democratic majority wills it?
Strike three, low and outside.
I was describing the history in precedent. The mercantilist practice I described existed and was common. You just don't like it. Neither do I.
All of your foolishness could have been avoided had you read that article. Nor have you repented of your claim that I can't read. Until you do, we're done.