Which is exactly the way it was originally intended....to put fetters on the NATIONAL government, not the states. Like it or not, that is the thing the FF intended. They considered the state governments to be more defending of citizens rights than the FedGov. Legally, this changed with the Civil War and passage of the "reconstruction amendments", applying the full Federal Bill of Rights to the states.
Well in that case I’m glad that happened, because I don’t believe you can trust government at ANY level to protect your rights. The founders were a little naive on that one.
Yes, and no.
I present Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Seems clear to me that they intended the Constitution to apply to the States as well - and that the States agreed to this by ratifying the Constitution.
However, as has been pointed out, the Bill of Rights is mostly a list of things that the FedGov must keeps its dirty paws off of, and pointedly states that, essentially, "anything we didn't specially state the FedGov was required or allowed to do is within the jurisdiction of the States, or the People." (Of course, as was feared, the problem with enumeration is that there are those who will insist that it is an all-inclusive, instead of a representative, set.)
Now then, compare the language of the 1st Amendment - "Congress shall make no law" - versus the 2nd - "shall not be infringed". Given the Supremacy Clause, I submit that the 2nd is a more stringent prohibition not only on the FedGov, but on the States as well than is the 1st.
Your thoughts?