It is exactly what you are saying: that the federal government has the power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states because it is not prohibted from doing so.
Most ironically you refer to Article 6!
Though one reason for the BOR was fear of a broad interpretation of the powers in Article 6- you blithely interpret Article 6 to find power granted to the the federal government by the BOR!
The Anti-federalists are rolling in their graves!
I assume you are aware that the Supreme Court agreed with the Founders that the BOR granted no enforcement powers to the federal government. That was no surprise however since a Founder who had participated in the constitutional debates was on the court at the time .
A great effect of Free Republic is to encourage people to research our Constitution and history. After school is over many of us never crack another book on our Founding.
Grab a text on our history from the library. It's free!
Better yet get a biography of one of our Founders. They have lots of fascinating personal information mixed in with the sometimes dull historical facts.
See post 410.
It is exactly what you are saying: that the federal government has the power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states because it is not prohibted from doing so.
Does not follow. You contend that I argue that anything not prohibited is allowed. What I truly argue is that which is prohibited, is prohibited; what is allowed is allowed. Some things to the Feds, some to the States, some to both. Then, under the 10th A., undelegated powers not prohibited are reserved to the States or, ultimately, the people.
Violation of the Constitution is prohibited to both, via their officer's sworn oath. The BoR are part of the Constitution, therefore violation of same is prohibited to the States.
I have not argued power to enforce either way, your assumption that I have notwithstanding.