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.
Sooner or later, you're going to have to come to the realization that words have meanings. They're not just little pieces of window dressing that we make cool-sounding phrases out of. Process means process, not the substance of the law. If you're going to demand that government not be held to the meanings of the words that define their powers, then you shouldn't complain when they use that latitude you've so graciously given them, to do whatever they please.
CA is busy infringing my RKBA, with majority rule acceptance. The 14th is 'necessary' here, - NOW.
Translation: Your state's doing something you don't like, so you want the feds to get involved. You're sadly mistaken if you think Washington has any interest in protecting genuine liberty. They certainly will never use the 14th amendment to uphold 2nd-amendment rights, because they themselves have next to zero respect for those rights themselves. You'd have a much better chance of reforming your state government than reforming Washington, unless you think Washington is somehow inherently wiser - an odd position for a libertarian to take. Their history with the 14th amendment has been almost nothing but a history of judges using it to impose their personal preferences on society. What little it may have done to restrain states from doing things that truly violate peoples rights, has been completely overshadowed by the malignant growth of the federal government that the 14th made possible, albeit indirectly.
And its the job of the constitution to see that individual rights are not violated. - Checks & balances, remember?
The job of the Constitution is indeed to preserve checks and balances, and that's done in a variety of ways, not the least of which - as the name of our country strongly implies - is the division of power between the state and federal governments. The 14th amendment hamstrings the states in their ability to govern themselves, leaving the feds to fill in the vacuum - all while doing next to nothing to protect individual rights.
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.
I'm sure it would be great if we had small government at all levels, that stayed out of peoples' business and just did what was necessary to protect lives and property, but until the federal government starts living up to those standards, I don't understand how any sane person can demand that they be the guardians of our liberties against the states - their only meaningful competition. As a libertarian, I'm sure you can understand (and have probably heard before) that the more we demand of government to do for us, the more we authorize them to do to us. At no level of government does that hold more true than at the national level.
And just as a technical note, I'm wondering what you mean when you say that states don't have the power to pass "moral" laws to control personal behavior. You seem to subscribe to the "original intent" school of legal interpretation, so I'll ask you: Was it the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment to overturn all existing state laws against fornication, sodomy, incest, polygamy, etc.?