LOL! I've been known to create those my self. Some of these concepts can get quite lengthy. :)
-----
Only if a State were explicitly exercising one of the few forbidden powers or (later, as I indicate) they were actively denying the substance of the first 8 Amendments to their citizens
Yes. The first 8 Amendments, being mutually agreed upon by all the States, was binding on all the States.
-------
disparaging specific civil rights which Congress had both defined and legally respected
As I understand it, no.
Congress' civil jurisdiction is defined by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)"
Ten miles square is the extent of the area the federal government is allowed to legislate for. This area is theirs and theirs only. They have no more right to legislate for the States in civil law the the State would telling Washington D.C. how IT was going to do things.
Out side of that area, it becomes a purely administrative authority.
To do it any other way negates the rights of the States to legislate for themselves.
Congress is supposed to decide how it's going to fulfill its obligations, not become the country's dictating authority.
-----
For example, in a Roe-like case the only "lawful" similar decision that sCOTUS might have made (assuming Congress had first acted) would be to find that their created "fundamental right" would henceforth prevent Congress from respecting a Civil Right to life for the unborn.
The SC should have declined the case since they had no jurisdiction to even hear it, IMHO.
Roe 'legalized' abortion, but it existed long before that. It's even mentioned in Blackstone's Commentaries
COMMENTARIES on the LAWS OF ENGLAND
Sir William Blackstone
1765
BOOK THE FIRST - OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS
CHAPTER THE FIRST - OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.
(snip)
An infant in ventre fa mere, or in the mother’s womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to it’s use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. And in this point the civil law agrees with ours.
-----
I have to admit I'll have to reread your original post. We seem to agree on the basics at least!
Its been rough going trying to explain to FReepers that the 'law' isn't whatever the government say it is while being flamed the entire time. :-)