"Privileges and Immunities": All it's understood to mean really is that the state can't interfere with the relationship between the U.S. government and its citizens. For example, a your state would be prohibited from extraditing you to Iran on demand from the Ayatollah, because as a U.S. citizen, you have an immunity to being sent overseas to be prosecuted by a foreign tribunal, except in cases where an extradition treaty might apply, and even then it could only be under the auspices of the U.S. Department of State.
"Due Process": Ned said, "The statutes that you will be reviewing will not expressly provide...'The purpose and effect of this statute is to deprive persons of their life, liberty or property without due process of law.'" Even that unlikely hypothetical situation is a complete contradiction. There's no way a law can violate due process of law, because, "due process of law" means making sure you have a law to back up your actions against someone - in other words, not just throwing someone in the slammer because you consider him a "threat", or just plain don't like him. I know that courts have tried to twist it to mean that if you act on the basis of an "inappropriate" law, then due process is being violated, but that's nothing but a very sophomoric argument. That's what I mean when I said in post 19, that the 14th amendment isn't a blank check for judges to write their own legislation, even thought that's exactly how they've been using it.
"Equal Protection": This clause applies to how courts apply the law. A court would be in violation of it if it were to give someone a lesser sentence for a crime against another, on the basis of who the victim was, because then that victim would be denied his equal protection.
So 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.
I think I understand you. I think you're just saying that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause must not be interpreted to limit the power of state legislatures because any law that a state legislature enacts by your definition constitutes due process of law. That's one way of reading the due process clause and it's not necessarily an incorrect interpretation just because hardly anyone else reads it that way.