All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
--------------------------
In bold, you will find the words that refer to states and restrict them from violating an individuals unenumerated and/or enumerated constitutional rights.
Plain, ordinary language. - You dislike what it says? - Tough.
But to claim you can't understand only raises doubts as to your own abilities.
23 posted by tpaine
The only thing in that paragraph that could even come close to referring to the Bill of Rights is the privileges-and-immunities clause. But "privileges and immunities" are not rights. And it's very easy to show that it did not refer to the BOR, because right after it it says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," which was lifted right out of the BOR. So if the P&I clause was intended to comprise the BOR, why was there any need to add on the due-process clause? It would have already been understood. #27
Your view at post #27 is proved wrong by the words of a framer of the 14th, [from the 'original intent' cite at #63:
Well, judging from the wording of the text that I pointed out, it looks like somebody did not intend for the P&I clause to refer to the BOR. Can you explain to us why it is that the due-process clause was even mentioned if the privileges-and-immunities clause already covered it by incorporating the BOR?
You persist in making up some strange distinction between these clauses, as if this perception, -- that apparently only you can see, -- is some sort of proof of, -- what? - An intent to deceive by the framers of the 14th?
Frankly, I don't 'get' your nitpicking point.
The 14th was meant to prevent states from violating individual rights, whether enumerated or unenumerated by the BOR's. - Get it? -- There was no 'somebody' - intending to do any more than that, -- as proved by the historical record.
Then I'll break it down for you further. 1. According to your theory, the privileges-and-immunities clause refers to the Bill of Rights. 2. The Bill of Rights includes the prohibition against denying anyone life, liberty, or property without due process of law. 3. Putting 1 and 2 together, the P&I clause would include that same prohibition against denying life, liberty, or property without due process of law, according to your theory. 4. Keeping 3 in mind, it would then make absolutely no sense to follow up on that clause by saying, "nor shall any state deny to any person life, liberty or property without due process of law," as the 14th amendment does.
Get it now?