Not only does Section 1 of 14A clearly indicate that 14A applies only "privileges or immunities of citizens" to the states, but please consider the following. FDR's puppet justices wrongly ignored that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1, had officially clarified on several occasions that 14A did not take away state rights.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1866. (bottom half of first column)
"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired " --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1871. (top half of first column)
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe (bottom half of third column)
Despite Bingham's clarifications, outcome-driven justices robbed the states of their 10A-protected power to regulate (I say cultivate) religious expression in Cantwell v, Connecticut as evidenced by the following excerpt.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
The reason that patriots haven't done more to throw out the Supreme Court's spin on 14A and the Establishment Clause is the following imo. Given that knowledge is power, the consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught the Constitution and its history in the nation's public and private schools for many generations, patriots are powerless to stop activist justices from walking all over their constitutional rights.
Why do people call thoses federal employees in black robes justices? What is ‘just’ about their careless disregard of the limits of the Federal Constitution?
What is ‘just’ about their completely unbounded edicts?
What is ‘just’ about the way they almost always just rubber stamp their apposing ecustive and leglsators acts?
What is ‘just’ about theses corrupt federal employees in black robes? There is hardly more justice on the federal bench than exist in the halls of congress or the Whitehorse. Indeed in many respects their is much less.
So I shall not call them ‘justices’ but injustices.
By the way the 1925 Federal court that invented the incorporation doctrine did so rejecting not only the words of the amendments author, but 2 prior Federal court rulings on the subject.
It was indeed a results driven edict.