Section 1: This was two-fold: 1 it was to grant citizenship to any person born or naturalized in the US (overturning Dred Scott) and 2. It applied Article IV, section 2 to within a States as well as between states. According to Corfield v. Coryell this was partial defined as "The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state; may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised." Section one basically made it some that this type of approach was taken within states. All citizens of a state were to be treated equally. Special taxes, restrictions on movement, prohibitions on trade, denial of habeus corpus etc could not occur. This was in response to the "black codes" that created special laws that only affected one group of citizens and not another and thus treated citizens unequally. This "equal treatment under the law" interpretation was was confirmed in the way that Article IV section two was defined in Paul v. Virgina.
Section 2: Basically guaranteed Article IV, section 4. If the right to vote was removed from certain populations, the government could not be representative of the entire population. It doesn't deny the State's ability to remove the right to vote from certain populations. It just describes how that action would lead to a reduction in representation.
Sections 3 and 4 were about the civil war itself and aren't relevent to the conversation.
Section 5: Pretty straightforward. Grants congress authority to enforce the provisions.
The key to the 14th is the "some of" that you put in parentheses. Sections 1 and 2, when combined, assured what was supposed to be equal treatment under the law of all citizens within a state.
If all citizens within a state are treated equally under the law, the 14th wouldn't apply to said State's laws.
Incorporation, however, is about equality of laws between all states. It extends the limitations that the BoR places upon the Federal Government to the States. I am of the mind that this should require a specific amendment designed for that purpose. Something simple like "The limitations placed upon the Federal Government authority by Amendments 1 through 8 are also limitations placed upon the States" would suffice.
I would support such an amendment in a heart beat. The fact that it currently requires judicial intervention to determine if the amendments were indeed limitations on the states is proof that this is legislation from the bench. Teh fact that some things have yet to be incorporated only exacerbates the arbitrary nature of this legislation.