I am still waiting for you to provide one single piece of evidence for your positions. Just one. Also, is this your new fallback position -- that the 14th amend is the key to happiness? Have you given up on the BOR applying to the states from inception. Just in case you haven't, please read below. Below is what we call evidence, as opposed to repeating things over and over again.
Pg 391 of Constitutional Structures: Separated Powers and Federalism, Volume 1 of Amer. Con. Law, Louis Fisher, McGraw Hill, 1990
As finally drafted and ratified, however, the first ten amends to the cons – the bor – limited only the fed gov. In 1833, the Supreme Court explicitly held (Barron V. Balt) that the BOR restrained only the fed gov, not the states… The idea of imposing a national standard on the states was rejected by the Sup Ct. in 1873 when it held that the primary purpose of the Civ War amends was to guarantee freedom for blacks. Moreover privs and immuns were to be protected by the states, not the nat gove. Other decisions during this period also refused to apply the BOR to the states.
1. Pervear v. Commonwealth,
2. Twitchell v. The Commonwealth,
3. The Justices v. Murray,
4. Walker v. Sauvinet,
5. US v. Cruikshank,
6. Hurtado v. CA,
7. Presser v. IL,
8. Spies v. IL,
9. McElvaine v. Brush,
10. O’Neill v. Vermont,
11. Maxwell v. Dow
Oh, here's some more evidence that was never responded to.
An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 32 (emphasis in original)
In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
James Madison, Federalist 39 (emphasis in original)
Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.
James Madison, Federalist 40 (emphasis added)
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State government are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security.
James Madison, Federalist 45
Oh, I seem to be slipping. Refer to the Louis Fisher quote and notice again, that the SC ruled that the Civil War amends (13, 14, and 15th) were held NOT to incorporate the BOR.