No I asked for a ruling about the BOR and the states- there is only one Supreme Court ruling of course. As I said earlier several states did incorporate the BOR on their own.
Neither can you give any examples of people calling for a federal BOR to protect them from their states. There are thousands of quotes calling for it to protect them from the federal government.
Yet, you insist that is what they got because... well why? Because it's what they should have got?
You mentioned two federal cases:
Kelo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429187/posts
Thomas, J., dissenting..
" the Takings Clause did not even arguably limit state power until after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Note, The Public Use Limitation on Eminent Domain: An Advance Requiem, 58 Yale L. J. 599, 599—600, and nn. 3—4 (1949); Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250—251 (1833) (holding the Takings Clause inapplicable to the States of its own force)."
"Not even arguably" now that's condescension! At least I grant you can argue. Neither Justice Thomas nor I are any fans of Stare Decisis- we both look to originalism for our views. Of course some people may consider him more authoritative.
and Corfield v. Coryell
SAENZ V. ROE "Thomas, J., dissenting...
When Congress gathered to debate the Fourteenth Amendment, members frequently, if not as a matter of course, appealed to Corfield, arguing that the Amendment was necessary to guarantee the fundamental rights that Justice Washington identified in his opinion..."
There's a very promising view of the P&I clause, based on Corfield, in that dissent BTW. You should read it to get something positive out of this bizarre exchage.
No one (except Madison- who's proposal was rejected) wanted to give the federal government more power over the people and the states with the BOR.
It didn't happen until hundreds of thousands of Americans were dead. As much as you and I complain here about the abuses the federal courts make today under the 14th it should be easy to understand why the people of 1789 rejected giving them that power over their rights.
LOL, I found my way to Corfield through Saenz a while back. And now that you've read Corfield and Saenz you can go "rag on" Justice Thomas.
We're going nowhere and if we keep going that way we're gonna end up not too friendly.
So, unless you'd like to explain to me why "the people" would cede their rights to the states I'd say we should conclude our discussion.