I hope that linked.
Yes, there lies the crux of the matter. A question of jurisdiction. Early state governments had no injunction against flavoring its judiciary with religious tenets, according to what I've read in the past weeks.
When and WHY did the federal court system decide it could bypass the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments using a portion of the 14th, when it was clear from the beginning that the 14th was only operational in corporate federal zones (fictional federal states) and not in the union of Sovereign states proper?
Sovereigns already filed their claim for rights in the D of I and Constitution (which includes the first 10 amendments) and didn't need a 14th Amendment to grant them -- and definitely didn't agree to allow the 14th Amendment to abridge them or the Amendment wouldn't have been passed. :-<
(As an aside, don't you think it strange that the unalienable rights and the Sovereign Citizenship of slaves were not recognized by a simple act of Congress, rather than create a fictional nation to grant them a lesser status with the 14th Amendment?)
Now the 14th is being used to control the union of states by over-riding three prior Amendments. I thought it was unconstitutional to pass any law or amendment that was repugnant and not in pursuance (destructive) to the founding documents.
I consider what the federal judiciary is doing now is an overt grab for total municipal power. Time to put these buzzards back in their cage lest the over-shadowing of their wings block out the Light of Liberty completely.