Yes you are. Nothing in your post amounts to anything significant regarding real, or potential fed tyrany.
"In fact, the 39th Congress was mainly concerned with establishing constitutional authority for its Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was meant to protect the rights of recently emancipated slaves in the South, and these rights, specified in the Act, consisted explicitly of the "right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, and shall be subject to like punishment." These rights were held to be incident to the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property without which the "fundamental rights of citizenship" could not be enjoyed. The emancipated slaves were now citizens, and like all citizens had to enjoy these fundamental rights that enabled them to function in society and sustain their freedom."
There you go chief. Raoul Berger is full of it. Seems he thinks the BoRs is does not protect, "the fundamental rights of citizens. The key is, all citizens, not just the majority, not just whites, not just blacks - ALL CITZENS. The rest of the article contains references to errors and stuff made up, like what the right to privacy really is.
I notice you left out addressing Plessy vs Ferguson again.
If you're basing your whole argument on one case while ignoring the vast amounts of facts I have given you, then you're a tried and true big government cheerleader.
Sorry to say this again, but the 14th amendment is still an abomination to limited government minded people. It undermined the founders intent for the balance of power between states and the federal government. But people like you don't seem to care. If someone disagrees you say things like "Raoul Berger is full of it." without any sort of facts to back up the ad hominem attacks. The Bill of Rights does not protect the fundamental rights of citizens in the way you think it does. What their intention was, was to restrain the FEDERAL government from doing what it is doing today. The fundamental rights of citizens are protected by the states and the citizens themselves. If you can't grasp that issue, then there is no hope for you. You're lost among the big government defenders such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Adios.