That phrase notwithstanding, The entire Bill of Rights, from stem to stern, and by intention, is overwhelmingly about individual human rights, not the mechanics of governments at any level. Why don't you try this reasoning out on some other parts of the Bill of Rights, and see if it makes sense to you? How about this: The US congress can't curtail your freedom of speech, but any local municipality may, in any way it sees fit?
More to the point, try this: the us gov may not hold you in bondage slavery as property, without due process, but any state may, at it's own discretion?
Lest any doubt about this be entertained, the founders reiterated this point twice, in the 9th and 10th amendments, and, by my lights, so did the victors of the civil war, in my opinion, in 3 amendments that are entirely redundant to the 9th and 10th. If the 9th and 10th are to be understood in the context of the founder's frequently expressed desires.
1-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
9-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
13-Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
For reference, I have posted the ammendments you mentioned.
You said: "How about this: The US congress can't curtail your freedom of speech, but any local municipality may, in any way it sees fit? "
"More to the point, try this: the us gov may not hold you in bondage slavery as property, without due process, but any state may, at it's own discretion? "
I see your point, but I don't think the wording allows your conclusions. In 1, the Congress is prohibited from passing a law restricting speech and religion and from establishing religion, which can only apply at the Federal level.
13 abolishes slavery specifically throughout the United States. This is a big difference from one.
9 & 10 grant to the people and the states rights not enumerated, which in the case of 1 would include the right of the people to establish a religion or the states. They also grant to the people the right of free speech, as an inalienable right. They don't prohibit the States from passing a law establishing religion, but they might say that the people retain that right over the States.
In other words, the Constitution restricts the federal government, but certainly not the people. It was intended to protect us from the government, not make us subservient to it. Thus, the interpretation of law by the federal courts have violated the Constitution they are supposed to uphold.