Made most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States
Ratified July 9, 1868
"Because all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
The following are quotes of the Supreme Court of the United States.
"The privileges and immunities' of a citizen of the United States include, among other things, the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property, Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 126 (1873)
The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847 (1992).
This Court “has looked … to the Bill of Rights for guidance; many of the rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments ….have been held to be protected against state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause now protects.… Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures …” Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S.145,147- 148 (1968).
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. West VA. State Board of Education v,. Barnette et al 319 U.S. 624, 638
The fourteenth amendment …..furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. U S v. Cruikshank 92 U.S.542, 554 (1875)
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “raises no impenetrable barrier to the taking of a person's possessions, or liberty, or life. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Carey v. Piphus,435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978)
The crucial inquiry under the 14th Amendment is whether it clearly appears to be not a fair and reasonable exertion of governmental power, but arbitrary as to constitute an abuse of power. Mountain Timber CO. v. State of Washington, 243 U.S. 219, 237 (1917)
The act is sought to be sustained specifically upon the ground that it is reasonably calculated to promote the public health; and the determination we are called upon to make is whether the act has a real and substantial relation to that end or is a clear and arbitrary invasion of appellant's property rights guaranteed by the Constitution. ….The police power may be exerted in the form of state legislation where otherwise the effect may be to invade rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment only when such legislation bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or some other phase of the general welfare. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, [278 U.S. 105, 111-12 (1928)
Fourteenth Amendment, protects parties from unjustifiable discriminating application of law. Discriminating application of the law by government can constitute denial of due process. Touchstone of due process is protection of individual against arbitrary action of government. Wolff v Mcdonnell (1974) 418 US 539, L ed 2d 935, 94 S Ct 2963
Due process of law, within the meaning of Fourteenth Amendment is secured if laws operate on all alike, and do not subject individual to arbitrary exercise of powers of government. Missouri P. R. Co.v Mackey (1888) 127 US 205, 32 L.Ed 107, 8 S Ct 1161.Minneapolis & S.L.R. Co. v. Herrick (1888), 127 U.S. 210, 8 S.Ct. 1176; Leeper v. Texas (1891)139 U.S. 462, 11 S.Ct. 577; Giozza v. Tiernan (1893) 148 US 657, 13 S.Ct.721; Duncan v Missouri (1894) 152 US 377 , 14 S.Ct. 570.
The security of persons and property remains a fundamental value Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 175 (196