You have it exactly backwards.
The Bill of Rights wasn't passed to extend federal power under Article 6- as you are trying to do- but expressly to limit it's powers under Article 6.
Here is George Mason calling for a BIll of Rights at the Va. Ratification Convention:
"...Let us advert to the 6th article. It expressly declares, that "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which Shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby; any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Now, sir, if the laws and Constitution of the general government, as expressly said, be paramount to those of any state, are not those rights with which we were afraid to trust our own citizens annulled and given up to the general government?
The bill of rights is a part of our own [Virginia] Constitution. [But] The judges are obliged to take notice of the laws of the general government; consequently, the rights secured by our bill of rights are given up. If they are not given up, where are they secured? By implication!
Let gentlemen show that they are secured in a plain, direct, unequivocal manner. It is not in their power. Then where is the security? Where is the barrier drawn between the government and the rights of the citizens, as secured in our own state government?
These rights are given up in that paper; but I trust that this Convention will never give them up; but will take pains to secure them to the latest posterity."
There are ample quotes from Founders asking for a federal Bill of Rights to limit the powers of the federal government, there are NONE, I repeat NONE, asking for a Bill of Rights to give the federal government more power over the states or any person. Nor any after it was passed saying that it did.
That is why Marshall (who was at the convention where Georg Mason and Patrick Henry called for a Bill of Rights) ruled as he did in Barron.
"The Bill of Rights wasn't passed to extend federal power under Article 6- as you are trying to do-"
Interesting. Where did you get the idea I was trying to do that?
The BOR were passed to restrict the federal government, but they also restrict the STATE governments BECAUSE of article 6.
I'm not intimately familiar with Barron v. Balt, but I believe it is a case where the State of Maryland tried to deny just compensation to a person whose property was "eminent domained" by the State. The person lost, and Maryland won, said Marshall.
Let's say that's the jist of it, for the sake of argument. Here's what Marshall should have realized in Barron v Balt.:
The supremacy clause requires a state judge to rule that a person whose property is taken by a state, must be given just compensation by the state, even if the State's constitution or laws don't require just compensation.
Article VI places the 5th Amendment, for all practical purposes, in the State's constitution, and if there's something in the State's "constitution or laws to the contrary", then it is superseded by the 5th Amendment, and the Judge must rule that the State must provide compensation. What would it have hurt, for Marshall to rule this way?
An interesting nuance that may help clarify that I'm NOT saying the federal government gets more power over the States because of the Supremacy clause:
The Congress would not have power to enforce the Bill of Rights on the States, under the Akston implementation of the supremacy clause (pre-14th Amendment). It would be up to the States' Courts only, to hold the State Legislatures to the 5th Amendment. I would repeal Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
If it is a good thing that "NONE...I repeat NONE [of the Founders], ask[ed] for a Bill of Rights to give the federal government more power over the states or any person", then you also should like to see (at least) section 5 of the 14th repealed, because it rushed in where the Founders dared not tread.
I fully understand that the purpose of the Bill of rights in the Founders' minds was to restrain the US government. Mason was correctly worried that the power to, say regulate commerce, could have been abused and resulted in illegitimate searches and seizures, and prohibition of RKBA, for example, if the BOR wasn't added. "Implication" of "enumerated powers" wasn't enough.
By adding the BOR, to a document that contained the supremacy clause, they by default closed any loopholes allowing infringments in any state constitutions. It may not have occured to them that the US constitution (w/BOR) was going to be more protective of liberty than any of their jealously guarded State constitutions, but perhaps, at least in the case of Maryland's, it was.
Here is George Mason calling for a BIll of Rights at the Va. Ratification Convention:
"...Let us advert to the 6th article.
It expressly declares, that "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which Shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby; any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Now, sir, if the laws and Constitution of the general government, as expressly said, be paramount to those of any state, are not those rights with which we were afraid to trust our own citizens annulled and given up to the general government?
The bill of rights is a part of our own [Virginia] Constitution.
The judges are obliged to take notice of the laws of the general government;
consequently, the rights secured by our bill of rights are given up.
If they are not given up, where are they secured? By implication! Let gentlemen show that they are secured in a plain, direct, unequivocal manner. It is not in their power.
Then where is the security? Where is the barrier drawn between the government and the rights of the citizens, as secured in our own state government?
These rights are given up in that paper;
but I trust that this Convention will never give them up; but will take pains to secure them to the latest posterity."
There are ample quotes from Founders asking for a federal Bill of Rights to limit the powers of the federal government, there are NONE, I repeat NONE, asking for a Bill of Rights to give the federal government more power over the states or any person.
Over course there aren't, smith. Our BOR's was intended to limit the powers of ALL levels of government in the USA.
Geo Mason admits as much just above, when he says: " - Then where is the security? Where is the barrier drawn between the government and the rights of the citizens, as secured in our own state government?
These rights are given up in that paper -- " [our BOR's]
Nor any after it was passed saying that it did. That is why Marshall (who was at the convention where Georg Mason and Patrick Henry called for a Bill of Rights) ruled as he did in Barron.
Marshall 'ruled' as he did in Barron in a futile attempt to avert civil war over States violating individual rights.
States have never had the power to infringe upon our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property. The 14th made that original constitutional principle crystal clear in 1868.
You 'states rights' zealots are still fighting against those basic freedoms. `
Laws of the general government means laws passed by Congress, correct?
Examples of Mason's concern would be Federal anti-gun laws infringing the RKBA for Virginians.
Let gentlemen show that they are secured in a plain, direct, unequivocal manner. It is not in their power. Then where is the security? Where is the barrier drawn between the government and the rights of the citizens, as secured in our own state government?
Since the Supremacy Clause makes the Laws of the United States supreme, could Mason be referring to rights in the VA Constitution being overridden by laws passed by Congress?
These rights are given up in that paper; but I trust that this Convention will never give them up; but will take pains to secure them to the latest posterity."
Mason is expressing concern that the rights of Virginians could be at risk from the Federal government.
How could applying the BOR in the US Constitution to Virginia make the rights of Virginians less secure?
Here is the next paragraph from Mr. Mason:
I said, the other day, that they could not have sufficient information. I was asked how the legislature of Virginia got their information. The answer is easy and obvious. They get it from one hundred and sixty representatives, dispersed through all parts of the country. In this government how do they get it? Instead of one hundred and sixty, there are but ten — chosen, if not wholly, yet mostly, from the higher order of the people — from the great, the wealthy — the well-born — the well-born, Mr. Chairman, that aristocratic {267} idol — that flattering idea — that exotic plant which has been lately imported from the ports of Great Britain, and planted in the luxurious soil of this country.
I think he's referring to powers of Congress, not the Courts.
Did Mason ever comment on Article III granting USSC original jurisdiction in cases in which a State shall be a party?
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers