[billbears]

You poor simpleton. This will be my last post to you as I'm tired of educating blank minded statists like yourself. You quote Amendments so we'll start with those shall we? The Amendments to the Constitution of these United States were intended to apply originally only to the citizens of the respective states and their relation to the federal government. This is not wishful thinking. This is fact (as far as fact goes for around here). When the Constitution was written, one of the additional Amendments, that was not passed, would have immediately applied the Bill of Rights to the separate and sovereign states. However this Amendment was not passed. Any doubts to this, I would refer you to Barron v. Baltimore as one of several cases verifying this.

Then you come to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the stalwart of supporters of federal supremacy. Unfortunately most of them ignore the intent of that Amendment and the almost 60 years of judicial ruling after the passage refuting their arguments. Passed in the 1860s, after the tariff war, the 14th Amendment was not meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights. This can be proven as late as the 1920s when SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment limitations on government did not apply to the separate and sovereign states. The only Amendment incorporated up until that time was the 5th Amendment in 1897

Slowly over time, it is true most of the Bill of Rights were 'incorporated' to the states but this was not completed until the late 1930s. I would recommend the writings and speeches of Janice Rogers Brown and Justice Clarence Thomas to you however I fear they would just simply go in one ear and out the other. For further reading however I will refer you to

When, Where, and How Did The “Selective Incorporation” Doctrine Get Started?

Please note the judicial rulings. These would be accepted as legal confirmation to you?

Hey! Yo! If the Federalist Papers are not part of the U.S. Constitution how can they have any legal founding??? They are not legal documents...

No junior they are not legal documents. However they give us insight as to the intent of the man who is considered the 'Father of the Constitution'. Sorry this is so hard for you. Should I just begin putting my arguments in shapes and colors for you? Just how old are you?!?

5000 words precede the Tenth Amendment and many others follow it that are not abrogated by it one bit.

Many words follow the Amendment and 5000 are before it. At least you can count. Perhaps now you could try reading the damn thing and realize the Constitution is nothing more than a limitation on the federal government and not a grantor of rights

For the most part you may want to check out the entire site on the link I provided. It will give you a better understanding, or should I say an understanding at all, of the intent of the document

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You poor simpleton.

I'm tired of educating blank minded...

No junior...

Should I just begin putting my arguments in shapes and colors for you? Just how old are you?!?

At least you can count.

...or should I say an understanding at all,...

Typical liberaltarian sophistry and ad hominems... condenscending cultural Marxists...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

This will be my last post to you...

...and the horse you rode in on too, partner!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You poor simpleton.

I'm tired of educating blank minded...

No junior...

Should I just begin putting my arguments in shapes and colors for you? Just how old are you?!?

At least you can count.

...or should I say an understanding at all,...

Typical liberaltarian sophistry and ad hominems... condescending cultural Marxists...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

This will be my last post to you...

...and the horse you rode in on too, partner!