First, I would like to say that I thought your complete response to my post was well thought out and presented coherently.
As I had suggested to another Freeper who responded to my post concerning my contention that 9th amendment is the constitutional basis for the right to ingest the chemical of our choice, that Freeper also responded to my contentio by quoting the 10th amendment as the constitutional basis for the "states" to prohibit that right, I then reminded that Freeper that the 14th amendment appears to have rendered the 10th amendment superfluous.
With that being said, I would like to ask you, how do you reconcile the 10th amendment with the 14th amendment?
Your reply is welcomed.
First, I think that the 14th Amendment is interpreted far too broadly and a clear example can be found in Reynolds v. Sims (Alabama), and Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, which forced state legislatures into representative apportionment by population only under the ideal of "one man, one vote". The idea that the Constitution demands "one man, one vote" is absurd in light of the Senate. Similarly, Everson v Board of Education changed the clear meaning of the 1st Amendment (which starts out with the word Congress) to include the states, and was followed by McCollum v. Board of Education removing religion from schools. It is notable that these cases rely on "due process" and not "immunities or privileges". And constrast these post-Roosevelt decisions with the pre-Roosevelt Slaughterhouse cases.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, one of the privileges granted by the Constitution is that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The 14th Amendment in no way changes the clear meaning of that amendment unless you mean to argue that the 14th Amendment forces state governments to abide by the restricted powers of the Constitution and prohibits the states from excercising any powers not delegated to the United States. If that is so, then the state governments become irrelevant, since their powers would precisely overlap with those of the Federal government. Would you aregue that we should disband the state governments? If not, what purpose do you think they serve?