What then, is the 14ths purpose, if it does NOT apply the BOR's to the states?
I went into detail about that in #28, explaining the meaning of privileges and immunities, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws. If you don't want to go through all those details, then I gave the short version at the bottom of the post: "The common thread running through all three is that they are simply prohibitions against the worst types of potential abuses of state power, not a blanket protection of unspecified natural rights. It's the job of the peoples of those states to make sure their own constitutions contain the appropriate protections, and ultimately, to make sure that their governments respect their rights."
And why do you oppose an amendment that protects your own individual rights?
Actually, it's an amendment that's billed as a protection of individual rights. It's unnecessary because my own state constitution already contains the appropriate protections; and it actually makes matters worse, because it's rarely used in a manner that protects individual rights, and in many cases doesn't even pretend to (often, it's more about "group rights"). And so, whether or not it was intended as such, it's been the impetus for an unprecedented power grab by the feds, which has consistently eroded freedom over time.
Well, I think its interesting that you seem to think that everyone owes you explanations on all the nitpicking points you can dream up. - Silly, boring tactic.
Anyway, to answer your previous questions:
What then, is the 14ths purpose, if it does NOT apply the BOR's to the states?
I went into detail about that in #28, explaining the meaning of privileges and immunities, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws. If you don't want to go through all those details, then I gave the short version at the bottom of the post: "The common thread running through all three is that they are simply prohibitions against the worst types of potential abuses of state power, not a blanket protection of unspecified natural rights. It's the job of the peoples of those states to make sure their own constitutions contain the appropriate protections, and ultimately, to make sure that their governments respect their rights."
And its the job of the constitution to see that individual rights are not violated. - Checks & balances, remember?
-----------------------------
And why do you oppose an amendment that protects your own individual rights?
Actually, it's an amendment that's billed as a protection of individual rights. It's unnecessary because my own state constitution already contains the appropriate protections;
Mine doesn't. CA is busy infringing my RKBA, with majority rule acceptance. The 14th is 'necessary' here, - NOW.
and it actually makes matters worse, because it's rarely used in a manner that protects individual rights, and in many cases doesn't even pretend to (often, it's more about "group rights"). And so, whether or not it was intended as such, it's been the impetus for an unprecedented power grab by the feds, which has consistently eroded freedom over time.
You appear to have bought into the states 'rights' propoganda, - or - you have a statist type agenda of your own, based on the idea that a state can make 'moral' laws of some type, to control personal behavior. - Not so, under the 14th.