[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
As usual, you're seeing what you want to see. It's been my point all along.
In fact, that preamble states clearly: -- "all or any of the Articles, when ratified" -- will be "part of said Constitution".
What are you quoting from? The Preamble states: "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution".
But just keep telling yourself how goodly you read.