Actually, I see it that way, too, tpaine. The Framers designed for an extremely "lean" federal government. They would be shocked, stunned, to learn how obese it has become over the past two centuries.
I don't mind in the least that the federal bill of rights trumps states' bills of rights. Though I acknowledged that this very issue is what gave George Mason many sleepless nights. I have read the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Bill of Rights, authored by John Adams, and there's nothing in the federal bill that is at odds with any provision of it. If anything, the Massachusetts BoR expands the content of the federal bill, which it is its perfect right to do, under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The fact is, these bills of rights were the products of a particular period of human history and culture, a time of widely shared values and ideas about man and his place in political society and beyond. And that is why you will find that so many constitutions written in America during this historical period are so very similar to each other in language and in spirit.
For whatever that observation is worth....
If I might explore a different but closely related line of inquiry, consider this postulate: Not even the "best constitution" can provide the conditions for a free and just political society where the "human material" available to construct such a society is disordered and dispirited.
We wonder how things got so out of control with this sprawling and increasingly tyrannical leviathan of ours. It's really very simple: Politicians wax great in this world by appealing to our fears and greed. If we citizens were ordered by the traditional American virtues, freely expressed, then this problem would be moot. And then maybe we could have some fun "tar-and-feathering" parties, and run the charletans out of town on a rail.... :^)
American society today, it seems to me, does not have the kind of moral clarity it would take to put faithless, unprincipled politicians and their aiders and abetters in academe, the major media, and the salon culture of Park Avenue, Cambridge, Berkeley, et al. in their place.
Plato observed nearly 2,500 years ago that the polis -- the political order of a people -- can only be as good as the human material out of which it is constructed. If men are lustful and do not restrain themselves, then one cannot hope that the government of such men would be just, disinterested, or restrained.
All of which is to say that constitutions do not and cannot "order souls," or really make a difference in how we actually live our lives. Only religion can do that, and has ever done so from times immemorial. I think the Framers well understood this principle. Which is why they sought to protect religion against government encroachment.
I know God really "scares you," tpaine. But I wish you'd take a moment to think about that, and then tell me what you think.
No Betty, Article 6 is in the Constitution. Not the Bill of Rights.
Mason was not at all worried about the federal BOR trumping the state's because he wanted it to secure the state's Bill of Rights from the federal government. As he says.
Whatever, your heart is in the right place and you will discover that for yourself one day if you desire to. It's pretty much moot since the Fourteenth Amendment anyway.
One prominent reason the government grows and grows is because people re-interpret the Constitution to mean what they wish, so they can have what they wish. Politician, judges and citizens all do it.
Hmmmm.. Ok, I thought a moment about where you got the idea that "God really scares" me, betty, and I can't come up with a clue.
You're gonna have to help me out here. -- Is it cocktail time at the Boop residence perchance?
Agreed. However, a bible isn't required to discover the wisdom behind the notion that one should be prepared to defend oneself or family at anytime, anyplace. That we can't suggests something very 'secular' is at work here.
Peculiarly, I'm not a fan of Diane Feinstein or her religious interpretations. (Hey, whatever happened to seperation of church and state?) I think our government has been hijacked by religious interests, but I'm keeping that a secret, don't tell anybody.
On the surface, this sounds good. But with a federal Bill of Rights you get a federal interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
You get free speech interpreted as nude dancing, but not political speech 30 days before an election. Free speech does NOT include a high school student saying "God" at his commencement ceremony.
Freedon of religion? Try freedom from religion -- a hundred examples.
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? No-knock, anyone? Asset forfeiture, anyone?
And since you don't mind in the least that the federal bill of rights trumps states' bills of rights, then you don't mind that these USSC rulings apply to each and every state. Sorry, but I mind.