[Where does it say that?]
It doesn't need to, as the context makes it obvious, to anyone but a nitpicker.
It's good that you're finally seeing that context has a role to play in this discussion. The explicitly stated context of the Bill of Rights (as explained in the Preamble thereto) makes it obvious to anyone who knows how to read, that it's specific to the federal government.
[Where does it say that?]
It doesn't need to, as the context makes it obvious, to anyone but a nitpicker.
It's good that you're finally seeing that context has a role to play in this discussion.
It's good to see you conceding my point. Thanks.
The explicitly stated context of the Bill of Rights (as explained in the Preamble thereto) makes it obvious to anyone who knows how to read, that it's specific to the federal government.
I read good, and neither the preambles context, nor it's actual words, make your conclusion in any way 'obvious'.
In fact, that preamble states clearly: -- "all or any of the Articles, when ratified" -- will be "part of said Constitution".
-- A Constitution that specifically says in Art VI it is the "Law of the Land". -- The "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".
In context, your position is made ludicrous