Replies

>> You appear to be claiming that somewhere in the above paragraph, there is wording which declares that the Constitutional restrictions on the federal government, as listed in the Bill of Rights, now applies to state and local governments as well. I will need you to explain to me where that wording is.

Here you go ...

“No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...”.

>> The “due process” clause has nothing to do with the ability of individual states to enact laws, with the possible exception of laws which attempt to nullify due process requirements.

You are entirely wrong. See the following passage from the 14th amendment ...

“NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW ... etc, etc, etc.”

The WHOLE point of the amendment is to prevent individual states from passing laws which (1) infringe on privileges and immunities of citizenship, (2) deny life, liberty or property without due process or (3) deny equal protection.

>> Furthermore, the fact that this clause was included in the 14th, worded specifically to apply to states is evidence that the original amendments were not meant to limit states in the first place.

EXACTLY! The original amendments DIDN’T apply to the States ... UNTIL the 14th amendment was ratified. That was the entire point of the 14th amendment ... to ensure citizens’ Consititutional protections from State governments.

>> but there is nothing in that clause to suggest that rights or prohibitions for citizens of each state, which existed before the 14th passed, can no longer exist.

The other clauses suggest exactly that ... rights or prohibitions which violate the due process, equal protection or privileges and immunities clauses CANNOT continue to exist (such as blacks not voting, etc.).

What “liberty” do you suggest that this phrase refers to? The definition of “liberty” in this passage is the same as the definition of “liberty” in the 5th amendment ... and necessarily includes the freedom of speech.

Yes, and I would say that "liberty" refers to one's freedom from imprisonment. Tyrannical governments like to throw their citizens in jail on a whim. If we were to take the broadest possible interpretation of "liberty", as you seem to be doing, then both the state and federal governments would be restricted from enacting and enforcing any law that restricts a person's ability to do something. For instance, a state would be forbidden from making it illegal to park in a red zome, because that infringes on a person's liberty without due process.

Now, from that silly example, we can be sure that the term "liberty" as was used in the 5th and 14th, does not mean any completely unrestricted condition. Nor does it reference previous rights delineated in the Constitution. The SCOTUS has inferred that it does, in order to render their flawed interpretation, but hey, they have a history of seeing eminations of penumbras. Nowhere, however, does that clause, or anything else in the 14th, say "all rights delineated in the other amendments are now applicable to the States".

As for the "due process" and "privileges and immunities" arguments, I'm sure you have a point you are trying to make, but I think a sticking point in your argument is that you keep using the clauses themselves to define the clauses. For instance, you say:

"The WHOLE point of the amendment is to prevent individual states from passing laws which (1) infringe on privileges and immunities of citizenship, (2) deny life, liberty or property without due process or (3) deny equal protection."

The problem here is that we are supposed to be debating exactly what "infringe on privileges and immunities" means. I say it means rights of federal citizenship as opposed to state citizenship, since it is worded exactly that way. You seem to be arguing that the state governments are forbidden from restricting anything, which is obviously false. The various states regulate, within their own borders, how alcohol can be sold, for instance. They also regulate or ban drugs, dairy, and handguns, all differently. How is that different from limiting or banning pornography?