“I agree. The 14th can prevent the states from abridging natural rights—heck, every government can and has to do that. But to say that it empowers Federal law to trump it every time makes a mockery of federalism and subsidiarity.”
You know, in some ways I really can see what you are saying. If Federal law trumps local and state law ALWAYS, then what’s the point of local and state laws? That is an issue that is ongoing in the California Medical Marijuana battle and on that side, I agree with state rights.
However, in this case, the issue is Federally protected individual RIGHTS. The elected official is being told if he does not adhere to a religious principle, he is not allowed to be a part of ‘We the People’ and self govern. That is the problem.
I would certainly agree if this involved a natural right. However, I am not sure that there is a natural right to hold a political office in the same way that there is a natural right, say, to marry whoever you want or to own property. I'll think on it more though--you've given me something to ponder.