Question 1
"Where does the Constitution state that an unborn child is a life that enjoys constitutional protections?"
Amendment V, since an unborn child can be nothing but a human being.
Question 2
"Where does the Constitution state that notwithstanding the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech as a fundemental right, a person can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater or verbally threaten the POTUS?"
"Fire in a crowded theatre," you can be denied the "right of free speech" by the property owner, or in other words, there is no Amendment I protection on private property. Xivilly and crimminally you can be held accountable for the "injury" and "damage" you cause for that action, primarily a "state" function. It is thus not an Amendment I issue.
"Verbally threaten the POTUS," no such power exist for Congress to pass such a law, thus unconstitutional.
Question 3
"Where does the Constitution define ths scope of the equal protection clause? Does the clause literally mean that the government must treat everyone equally as to both benefits and burdens, or is the goverment allowed to draw classifications among her citizens even though not specifically authorized in either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments?"
"is the government allowed to draw classifications," not authorized, so unconstitutional.
Question 4
"Where does the Constitution allow government to seize a person's private property when the property consists of that person's stash of marijiuana, heroin, or cocaine?"
It doesn't, so such laws are unconstitutional.
But again, I will ask you.
Amendment IX, clearly states "rights." Not fundamental "rights." Just "rights."
How did past judges, (I say past, because recent Supreme Court rulings are moving away from the notion of "fundamental rights" to the notion of "liberties.") properly and textually construct and interrupt the clear statement of Amendment IX concerning "rights" (which implies limitless rights) to the anti-liberty declaration that "rights" have to be "fundamental" in order to have constitutional protection?
It is obvious that the notion of "fundamental" rights is pure judicial dictum. Again, blatant judicial activism which has led to the denial, disparament, and diminishment of liberty in this country.
"Rights" are limitless unless the exertion of a right by one person infringes on the rights of another person, then government, primarily, state governments, have the power to "regulate" the exertion of rights for the protection of everyone's rights.
Stop signs, for example, at a 4 way intersection.
Amendment V, since an unborn child can be nothing but a human being.
Where does the Constitution define "person" to include the unborn? To reach that conclusion, you have to go outside the four corners of the Constitution, and therefore, by necessity, you are engaging in subjective construction.
"Fire in a crowded theater," you can be denied the "right of free speech" by the property owner, or in other words, there is no Amendment I protection on private property. Civilly and criminally you can be held accountable for the "injury" and "damage" you cause for that action, primarily a "state" function. It is thus not an Amendment I issue.
When the government imposes criminal penalties for certain kinds of speech, even when that speech occurs on private property, then the First Amendment has been implicated because the criminal penalties have a "chilling effect" based upon the content of what one has said. Indeed, the government regulates the content of speech on private property all the time, like when it from prohibits pornography and adult entertainment. (BTW, where does the First Amendment contain an exception for porn?)
"Verbally threaten the POTUS," no such power exist for Congress to pass such a law, thus unconstitutional.
Except Congress has passed such a law, which the SCOTUS has upheld against First Amendment challenge.
"is the government allowed to draw classifications," not authorized, so unconstitutional.
Except the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld hundreds if not thousands of such government classifications against challenges under the Equal Protection Clause, including but by no means limited to mandatory retirement, social security benefits, military service, distribution of government funding, and college admissions. (Did you know that one of the most important factors in gaining admittance to many public colleges and universities, including our Nation's military academies, is not skin color or ethnicity, but whether the applicant is a legatee or the progeny of alumni?) Although the Equal Protection Clause is silent on the issue, I doubt -- in fact, I know -- that government could not function if it had to treat everyone with perfect equality.
"Where does the Constitution allow government to seize a person's private property when the property consists of that person's stash of marijuana, heroin, or cocaine?" It doesn't, so such laws are unconstitutional.
Tell that to your local DA and Ass't. US Attorney.
I'll try to answer your IX Amendment question later this morning.