That is BS, and you know it is. Unelected judges have determined that the Constitutition has no guarantees.
The problem with your argument is that you have rejected my sources because they are evil judges - that is it, nothing else despite part of their job on the Supreme Court is to be Constitutional experts...
I had no idea you were living such a sheltered life. Let me give you a few examples: In 1993, or so, Chief Justice Rehnquist was very upset that a law he supported was ruled against (5-4). The law involved asset forfeiture, an activity that is specifically prohibited in the Constitution at both the state and federal level. Rehnquist whined to the media, "This law was not too unconstitutional!" About a decade ago (maybe less), Justice Souter voted on the side of the teacher's union, explaining, "I know this law is unconstitutional, but I am supporting it for labor peace". Of course, if you have not been living in a cave this past year you will know that O'Connor and other Supremes publically declared that their considerations were based on international law (vs the Constitution). So get off this "evil judge" rant. Judges have been violating their oath since Marbury vs. Madison, and they (with few exceptions) deserve no respect.
Obviously you are lacking that half a brain if the 13th and 14th apply to the states but the 1st doesn't.
The other amendments apply to the states as well because there are no restrictive clause. The 1st restricts its prohibitions to the congress. Jeesh!!!
BTW - the constitutionalist position does not make a left wing position
Correct. You, however, believe that judges are the sole authority on the constitution. That is exactly what the leftists want the peasants to believe. Strict constructionists, on the other hand, believe the constitution is the supreme authority, and that there are co-equal branches with an executive and congress that punishes the judiciary when it steps out of line in its rulings. Modern day collusion between the branches renders that unlikely.
Small, non-invasive government is a cornerstone of the conservative position.
Exactly. Of course that (non-invasive government) is highly unlikely as long as our nation is ruled by judicial fiat.
The rest of us Conservatives want small, limited government at all levels because we trust the people to make their own decisions about their own life.
Sure you do. You sound more like a liberterian than a conservative, except no liberterian in his/her right mind would trust the sole interpretation of our constitution to unelected judges. Therefore, you must be a leftist troll.
Sooner or later you'll realize that all amendments, all of the articles apply to all states because that's simply the way the Constitution was written.
The amazing thing is you would arguing the opposite in the university and school cases where Christian groups and publications were first banned but then sued for their rights under First Amendment protections. State schools have to follow the First Amendment but not the state....that just doesn't figure.
The 1st protects freedom of the press within the states. You, however, believe that judges are the sole authority on the constitution.
Not sole - but you didn't like Madison either.
[Small, non-invasive government is a cornerstone of the conservative position.]
Exactly.
If so, you should be arguing against the intrusion of government into religion rather than for it. "Maybe you're a leftist troll."
You sound more like a liberterian than a conservative
Arguing from a noninvasive, limited government point, I am often considered a libertarian conservative. I can live with that classification from those with the mental capacity to understand libertarian views.
Therefore, you must be a leftist troll.
Another ignorant ad hominem attack.