"Our constitutional rights are to be upheld by -all- empowered officials in the USA, fed/state or local. You need to reread Article VI, which you consistently ignore."
I agree that all levels of government must not violate our rights whether enumerated or not. The problem is with who determines what a right is and when it has been violated. Many believe abortion is a right. I would argue that it is an invented "right".
My point is that the government, at all levels, does not bear a burden to show that every law directly protects actual rights. Laws do exist that don't serve the function of directly protecting rights - such as taxation and criminal punishment and a military draft. The burden of proof is whether a law is Constitutional. Violating a REAL right would be unconstitutional.
"Barnett claims that the 14th 'fundamentally changed' the ability of States to make laws abridging our rights to life, liberty or property without due process."
It expands federal jurisdiction beyond merely the right to jury trial, etc. Where we differ is the handling of unenumerated rights. For federal courts to rule on unenumerated rights is unconstitutional because it is not in their jurisdiction. (Due process is a specifically enumerated right, not a way of lumping all other rights into federal jurisdiction.)
Local laws must be presumed to abide by due process as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution or the particular state Constitution.
"Who claims a 'right' is being violated? -- The governments power to tax is constitutionally enumerated. A violation of that power would violate the Constitution, not a human right."
Ownership is a right. Unauthorized taxation is a violation of it. The federal government has Constitutional authority to tax. Where do States get the power to tax? It is an power not prohibited and therefore permissible. Otherwise my state would be violating my right of ownership to tax me without specific authorization.
"you simply reject that concept. Have you ever sworn an oath to support the Constitution? -- Did that include support for the BOR's & the 14th?"
I reject your interpretation of the 14th to encompass unenumerated rights. You come across as if disagreeing makes me unpatriotic.
Barnett wrote:
"As we all know, this arrangement was fundamentally changed by the enactment of the fourteenth amendment after the civil war. Today, if a state government infringes upon a right the people retained against their respective states, there is no jurisdictional barrier preventing federal protection of this right."
Not exactly. Federal government has the power to be sure that states protect each person within their respective jurisdictions equally. That means a state cannot make one set of laws for white people and another set for black people. It does not give federal government jurisdiction over rights and powers not enumerated. It only concerns equality.
-- All the privileges, immunities & rights to life, liberty, or property mentioned by the 14th are enforceable, according to its last clause.
-- But of course, you simply reject that concept. -- Have you ever sworn an oath to support the Constitution? -- Did that include support for the BOR's & the 14th?
I reject your interpretation of the 14th to encompass unenumerated rights.
You are rejecting the fact that our Constitution demands [in Article VI] that sworn officials at every level support & defend our Constitution, notwithstanding any State laws to the contrary.. - State laws that would infringe on unenumerated rights as well as enumerated.
You come across as if disagreeing makes me unpatriotic.
If you've ever sworn such an oath, [and most of us have, in some capacity] then logically it included support for the BOR's & the 14th.