I'm sorry. I understood you to be suggesting in post 2 that you were interpeting the provision to mean that "the states are only prohibited from doing what the Constitution expressly prohibits them from doing" in other parts of the Constitution. If what you are actually suggesting is that the Fourteenth Amendment should be interpreted to prohibit the states from doing what the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits them from doing, then you are of course correct and you won't run into any problems with that interpretation until you run into a real case.
In the real cases that will confront you, the statutes that you will be reviewing will not expressly provide, "The purpose and effect of this statute is to deny persons the equal protection of the law," or "The purpose and effect of this statute is to deprive persons of their life, liberty or property without due process of law." So when you attempt to review a real case, you will confront the need to interpret the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment so that you can apply it to the particular facts presented. That will require that you proceed beyond simply stating that the Fourteenth Amendment "just forbids what it forbids" because that formulation merely begs the question - what does it forbid?
Yes, but "privileges and immunities" and "due process of law" are not exactly self-defining terms.
I said it added very specific provisions to the Constitution, not open-ended "natural law" mumbo-jumbo that basically says to judges that they can legislate however they damn well please.
You may be confused on what constitutes natural law. At its very finest and bedrock core foundation is this:
| Article 1: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property. Article 2: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1. Article 3: No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2. |
When a person is confused about this core foundation of natural law I ask them when they want to initiate force against a person or their property... Or, would they hire agents (government agents) to initiate force on their behalf -- thus the two become co-conspirators. If still confused I ask them when they want force initiated against themselves or their property.