Based on this flowery language on the 14th Amendment in the majority opinion, I'm having trouble understanding why the 14th Amendment doesn't make marijuana bans illegal too.
That sounds like an attempt at a constructionist argument. That's not what I'm reading at all in this opinion.
I'm reading about the 14th Amendment being something that develops over time, helping people discover new freedoms, and be the very best they can be. It's fluffy stuff.
Did you read the opinion? Decisions typically contain some rhetorical flair ("fluffy stuff"), but there was plenty of substance to this decision. See e.g. pages 3-5 of the Syllabus. None of this analysis would be relevant to a decision about marijuana, and many of the standards the decision sets forth would fail in the case of marijuana.
Yes, I agree, but the 14th amendment requires some kind of asymmetry in order to have effect. To violate equal-protection, something has to be unequal.
Not sure I get your meaning here. People who break the law are incarcerated more than people who don't break the law. That's not an equal protection violation.
