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?
For example, you state,
"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."
With that said, consider the following, as posted at FreeRepublic.com:
US Supreme Court Mull Whether Police Can Demand Identity
WASHINGTON (AP)--The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider whether people have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.
Justices will review the prosecution of a man under a Nevada law that requires people suspected of wrongdoing to identify themselves to police, or face arrest.
Isn't this action by the Supreme Court, in effect, stating that the 10th amendment is meaningless?
So, you then ask the next obvious question:
"Would you aregue that we should disband the state governments? If not, what purpose do you think they serve?"
I would not argue that we disband state governments, but the Supreme Court is slowly but surely rendering them obsolete and superflous.
I would like to see a return to the times before the 14th amendment when the people of each state could create the state of their choice, totalitarian or libertarian, as extremes, and the citizens would move to the state of their choice that best met their personal needs.
In effect, there would be a "market" of states to choose from.