Excellent point. When drafting the 14th amendment, it would have been very simple to word it such that the first eight amendments would "heretofore apply to the states".
The author said that was his intention, but history doesn't support it. That very same Congress subsequently passed statutes that were redundant and unnecessary had the 14th applied the BOR to the states.
Plus it took almost 100 years to "incorporate" the BOR, and still the 2nd, the 3rd, parts of the 5th, and the 7th only apply to the federal government.
"... does NOT say "The USSC will decide exactly which rights apply and which do not, and the USSC shall make these determinations on a case by case basis as the USSC shall see fit."
Yes but.
Someone has to interpret the Constitution. What is an "unreasonable" search? Do we really want Congress, which writes the statutes, interpreting "unreasonable"?
That was settled in a landmark case, Marbury v Madison in 1803:
"The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since."
-- usinfo.state.gov
I agree with you about the SC interpreting the CONS, but... it is criminal the way they've decided that the 14th applies the BOR to the states, and THEN they go about and say what applies and what does not and when it applies, etc. The 14th either did or did not make the BOR apply, if it did then we wouldn't need the court taking this step by step approach.