Madison did propose some limitations on the state governments for the Bill of Rights:
"I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions of equal if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, &c." were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the state governments than by the government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community.
I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know in some of the state constitutions the power of the government is controlled by such a declaration, but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the state governments are as liable to attack these invaluable privileges as the general government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against. "(from the same speech)
But they were quickly removed in the congress and were never even offered for ratification.
Some people say that Madison was just playing politics " nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed" (sticking it to the anti-federalists!), I don't know. Later he would certainly not want the federal government courts to have such power, but at the time he was quite the Federalist.
I posted this to show that Madison, largely being credited as the author of the USC, did in fact have it in mind to restrict all levels of govt via the BOR. I am well aware that they was much debate over both the USC and the BOR, but this does not take away from the fact that Madison recognized that having limited the powers of the federal govt did not secure the liberties of the people. You might call what he did politics or grand-standing, but it was quite clear what he had in mind. His verbage may not have been adopted, but the ideas he put forth were.
We may, however, be splitting hairs here. It seems inconceivable that one could at a higher level of govt, recognize that rights are divinely conferred and therefore "inalienable" only to allow signatories of that constitution that created that govt go on to take more liberal interpretations of the nature of those rights.