Alright, at this point I'm going to have to ask you to elucidate further and give me some reasons why you think that the due-process clause might be read in a different way than I did, keeping in mind the specific reasoning that I gave. What would be an example of an alternative reasonable meaning?
"The historical record left by the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, because it is a product of differing and conflicting political pressures and conceptions of federalism, is thus too vague and imprecise to provide us with sure guidance in deciding the pending cases. We must therefore conclude that its framers understood their Amendment to be a broadly worded injunction capable of being interpreted by future generations in accordance with the vision and needs of those generations." Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) 400 U.S. 112.
How do you like them apples?
It's not surprising at all that he should make such a ruling. What he's basically saying is that the 14th amendment gave him and his club a blank check to write legislation on. I'd have to respectfully disagree. If he truly believed what he said about the irreducibility of the meaning of the 14th amendment, then he would have no choice but to rule that it is, what the lawyers call "void for vagueness". That's how they rule in cases where someone passes a law saying something like "Don't do anything bad". It would be utterly irresponsible for judges to turn it into a license to legislate.
I don't believe the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted for the purpose of resolving turf wars between state legislatures and state judges. I believe that its adoption represented a conscious decision to limit the powers of the state governments and to expand the powers of the Congress with regard to state laws and practices.
I believe that that amendment's due process clause was adopted for the purpose of requiring that all states meet some minimum "American" standards of fairness when disposing of a person's life, liberty or property. I believe that the exact parameters of those minimum standards were intentionally left unspecific so as to allow for flexibility in the determination of those minimum standards. I think that any one of the four interpretations presented in the article at the head of this thread would constitute reasonable alternative interpretations for the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. In that regard, here is a link at which you can find a summary of historical support for the "incorporation" approach.
As for the equal protection clause, I believe that its primary purpose was to prevent states from discriminating against recently emancipated blacks. I do not view as reasonable any interpretation of the equal protection clause which ignores this history or design. Accordingly, I believe that the range of reasonable alternative interpretations would begin at a level which would forbid states from adopting laws or practices which expressly discriminate between persons on the basis of their race.
It's not surprising at all that he should make such a ruling. What he's basically saying is that the 14th amendment gave him and his club a blank check to write legislation on. I'd have to respectfully disagree. If he truly believed what he said about the irreducibility of the meaning of the 14th amendment, then he would have no choice but to rule that it is, what the lawyers call "void for vagueness". That's how they rule in cases where someone passes a law saying something like "Don't do anything bad". It would be utterly irresponsible for judges to turn it into a license to legislate.
That particular quote was from a case in which Brennan and the Court were concerned with the extent of the powers granted to Congress "to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions" of the Fourteenth Amendment. It had nothing to do with a "license to legislate" by the Court; it concerned the power of Congress to legislate pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.