So, while reading the decision from McDonald, it got me wondering about the incorporation of the several "inalienable rights" under a few select clauses of the fourteenth, then it struck me; the fourteenth amendment isn't poorly written, it's incomplete. There has been much ado about whether this right, or that right, should be incorporated under one of the following:
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.
I occurs to me that an "inalienable right" does not properly fall under any of these clauses. Starting with the first, the privileges or immunities of a citizen. Privilege, by it's own definition something granted especially to a particular person, by a particular institution, and with the full ability to be revoked. Most definitely not an inalienable right. Then there is "immunities," which while could be stretched to apply, is incomplete in its definition and meaning with regards to the term "inalienable right."
The second clause, often abbreviated simply to "due process," this one is specific to the items rights that a citizen may be deprived of: Life, liberty or property. This clause makes no mention of inalienable rights does not cover all unalienable rights, but only three, and even the term "unalienable" does logically imply that a citizen may not be deprived of their rights under any circumstances, due process or not. Being a constitutional amendment however and not just a federal law does unfortunately allow for the abridgement but again only specific to these three.
Finally, equal protections of the law. Perhaps the most accurate in terms of protecting a citizen's right, more so than immunities, but still, as we have seen with today's hair splitting court decisions, vague as to exactly what it is specifying. I for one would not consider a constitutionally enumerated, inalienable right whose existence is owed solely to my corporeal being as a human to be labeled as merely a "law" as would, say, a tax exemption that would give me protection from the Commonwealth of Virginia during military service, or even to be left to the decision of the courts as to decide which laws and rights are applicable under this clause, as they have been doing.
This brings me to a proposed hypothetical fourth clause that I've been kicking around in my head...
Nor shall any State, or subdivision thereof, make any attempt or law, to deprive any citizen of the United States of the protection, application or employment of any of the many inalienable rights granted them by their Creator and as enumerated by the Constitution of the United States and it's many amendments.
I think I've covered most of my bases with the wording. Thoughts and comments of the community?