Under the standard you state above, I can create madeup doctrines based on the XIV and V in almost any respect. There is no limiting principle at all, except maybe political pressure on the court. The fact you think the XIV and V stand for or can be constructed in a fashion on-demand abortions on a national level is laughable. It is ahistorical, atextual, and has a shifting, completely indeterminate justification. I will not even get into the federalism concerns raised by the doctrine, as clearly the constitution stood for much stronger federalism than enforced today.

You still haven't answered my question: Why can't I rejustify lochner using those "rights" under XIV and V? People have a right to contract with others without the government getting involved in their private transactions. There are liberty and property interests at stake. At least it wouldnt be ahistorical.

On the other hand, you are going after clearly textual rights that were extremely important to the framing process. The 2nd amendment meaning clearly refers the people's right to overthrown the government when it become tyrannical. Without a right to bear arms individual, that is a impossible task.

Only under a warped jurisprudence could you look at the constitution and see the framers endorsing on-demand national abortion rights and see no right to have a weapon in your own home. I honestly support abortion rights for the most part, but Roe is a moronic decision on every level and permanently ruined the courts standing in our society as a fair arbitrator.