Not true. The 14th Amendment applies the BOR to the states. If you don't believe me, read the speaches made during the debate Congress had prior to the vote on the said amendment. I've read them. Every single one of the supporters of the amendment in Congress explicitly stated that one of its purposes was to impose the Bill of Rights on the states.
But you (or really the courts) are the one determing when these 'rights' begin so they have no meaning.
Our rights to life, liberty, & property exist. We've discussed the hopeless dilemma of separating rights in the inseparable early pregnancy of woman/unviable child; - thus your claim that I & the courts 'determine their beginning' is meaningless noise.
Even worse, you believe that the state has a right to determine what a local community deems as rights
Our constitution is our supreme Law of the Land. Believe it.
--which is not mentioned or implied in the Consitution.
You contend our rights are not constitutionally outlined? Daft..
The Bill of Rights is only a list of things the federalis cannot do.
Belied by both the supremacy clause & the 14th. You need to study.
Since you believe the state should be ideally, the Consitution, you believe in a large state since it would take a large state in order to ensure these rights in every nook and cranny.
Are you 'all there' this morning? Your line above is pointless babble..
As a rightwing libertarian, I look at large states as inherently corrupt.
Yep, libertarians want limited government.. What else is new?
Look how many so-called 'libertarians' (see thoughtomator) claim they believe in a right to life but have no problem with the state dropping 'bunker-busters' on civilians.
Bad manners.. Ping him about it, not me.
Do me a favor and ping me if you're going to engage in ad hominem against me.
If they're US civilians, I sure do have a problem with it.
If they're foreigners, it all goes back to the Hobbesian state of war (unless they have negotiated a better arrangement with us) in which all recourse to violence, including dropping 'bunker busters', is equally legitimate. I would of course prefer that they not be dropped on civilians if the military goal can reasonably be realized without doing so.