Trump is a dealer...he makes deals.  That what he does and anyone who thinks he has a princpled bone in his entire body needs to think again. 

Come on, this can't be a shock.  He makes his living making deals.  His book from 30 years ago was titled "The Art of the Deal".  He has said that everything is on the table and you're not going to believe the deals he makes.

So...if you think that he is actually dedicated to building that wall or keeping Muslims out then think again.  These are bargaining chips to him.  He will trade them in a heartbeat to get whatever he wants and I don't think he has been very forth coming on what his actual agenda is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Of course a judge can and will invalidate a state law banning abortion which is what your example would do.  He/she is bound by the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade and follow on cases.

Well, that's the easy way out of it. 

I gave an example that probably demonstrates how I'm thinking about this.  It would seem to me that in reading the Constitution, I cannot find anything that allows the Supreme Court to rule on a State declaration on when life begins EXCEPT a previous ruling which mangled the Constitution in the first place by first assuming the right to an abortion, then elevating that assumption to Constitutional status in order use the 14th Amendment to override Texas' 100 year claim on regulating the issue.  Boom, you've provide the perfect example of my concerns.

So my question then is - if someone claims a right contrary to State law, when is that right NOT elevated to 14th Amendment status and when does that right NOT override the Bill of Rights?  The answers I find are almost never.  That means that every one of the other Amendments are subject to being compromised by rights claimed under the 14th.

Is the 14th Amendment a threat to the Bill of Rights?  I believe undoubtedly yes and we're going to have to suffer for what previous judges have done with it.

BTW, judges are only bound by a higher court's ruling if they decide to be.  If they develop their own logic on why the higher ruling doesn't apply then they are the law until a higher court disagrees with them.

I've had some long drives recently and while driving I tend to think about things. This is a recent one.

The 14th Amendment was passed just after the Civil War. It was adopted to help with the integration of former slaves and to punish Southerners after the fact. In general is a good Amendment. But there is one clause in there that says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" that could be problematic.

So it occurs to me...what happens if equal protection conflicts with the Bill of Rights? Then we arrive at a point where we no longer have guarantees of freedoms because any law can used to usurp the Constitutionally protected amendments by virtue of elevating it to the Constitutional level via the 14th Amendment. Literally any law that you can imagine, from parking tickets to murder, can become a Constitutional issue IF it can be shown to be enforced in an unequal way.

That seems dangerous to me. It means that a city council can make a law AND that that law can then gain the power of the Constitution by attaching to the 14th Amendment and by doing so override the Bill of Rights. The secret recipe...and maybe Republicans need to start using this...is to word the law in such a way that the equal protection clause clearly applies.

For example, a city council might rule that in the City of Raleigh, babies are known to be alive at conception and are therefore entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, prohibiting all abortions. That's a quick off the cuff example, but is it so far fetched? The only attack on it would be that the Raleigh City Council is unqualified to make such a law. But what if the NC legislature did it? Can a federal judge rule that the NC legislature is prohibited from making a law declaring babies alive at conception? That isn't covered in the Constitution anywhere and would therefore be a power reserved for the States. The 10th Amendment would cede the power to the State legislature and the 14th would give equal protection under the law to the baby.

Yup, that seems really dangerous to me. Dangerous to who is determined by who is in power.

That is no basis for a Republic. Yes, the 14th Amendment is ripe for abuse...and it has been abused.

Is a white North Carolinian of Scottish/Irish heritage the same ethnic group as a native black North Carolinian?

As much as a white American and Black American are equally American. 

Try again.  You're not thinking very far ahead.

Just so you understand that you are advocating an entire change.  You can call it correcting a mistake, but it would be introducing a new legal regime.

Of course, when you say "absolute" in reference to preeminence of the religious liberty clause, you are paving the way for the return of human sacrifice.  I am guessing you don't really take it that far, but then it isn't absolute any more.

If we start deciding what religious beliefs are correct and which are not then there is no religious liberty. Tell me a religious belief which respects the equality of being human but that you think should be banned. 

By human sacrifice I presume you mean involuntary human sacrifice, which does not respect equality.  You cannot sacrifice someone else's life for the same reason you cannot murder, because it is their life and it is not yours to take.  I will never approve of human sacrifice but if two people voluntarily get together and agree to practice it then can you interfere with what two consenting adults want to do?  I'd wonder about the victim's ability to consent, is there a mental deficiency or a lack of understanding on their part?  I'd need to be convinced before I'd agree that it was consensual. 

And yes, I do advocate fixing mistakes of the past but thjat is a secondary priority to not making more mistakes today.

Not me.  I raise the seat so I won't pee on it.  But occasionally, I forget to put it down.  As it turns out, I believe women would rather have me pee on the seat than to leave it up.  They seem to be incapable of realizing the seat is up and they sit down and fall in.
 

I put both seats down.  If they can't figure that one out, they have a different problem.

Well, it does not exist in this country by your standards as it is not absolute and it hasn't ever been to my knowledge, but it certainly is not now.  We are still struggling with, and probably always will struggle with where to draw the line.

I was reading the other day that children of certain religious sects who do not believe in modern medicine die at a much higher rate than do children of more traditional religious faiths.  Does a parent have a right to let their child die because of their faith when medicine can easily save them?

Saying that we have screwed up in the past is not license to abandon it completely in the future.

try again.

How big a percentage of the population must a group be before they are eligible for an accommodation?  Where do we draw the line?

Percentages are irrelevant.  Percentages are determined by groups and groups are nothing more than individuals.  There are no "group" rights, there are only individual rights.  You cannot name a single group right that exists which is not also an individual right.