You seem to be confusing the issue of the current state of the law (e.g. what the liberal activist SCOTUS has said about the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine and the First Amendment) with what the Constitution itself actually means on these issues. I don't care about what a bunch of judges have said, I care what is correct.
Just what constitutional issues have I "refused to face"? I've "faced" the supposed incorporation of the BoR into the 14th and every other point you've made. Its you who "refuse to face" the fact, for instance, that government does indeed have the right to "enact fiat prohibitions" of many types of property, such as narcotics. By the way, you keep mentioning that states may impose "reasonable" restrictions on the public aspects of pornography...but this is irrelevant to the issue of whether a state may constitutionally take ANY means to stop the public trafficing of pornographic images. The issue is simply whether individuals have the constitutionally-protected right to display pornography, regardless of whether the state's action is "reasonable". That is why the two issues I originally stated are still THE two significant issues.
You really should get a refresher course on Constitutional principles. - Or read some good books.
I highly recommend Barnett's book on 'A Presumption of Liberty'...
Again, there are two issues: 1. Do pictures of two libertarian fellas boning each other fall under the category of "protected speech" Do you have a right to prohibit their possession of such filthy pictures?
Ask your fellow lawyers on the USSC, who have said you do not.
such that the silly SCOTUS-manufactured incorporation doctrine prevents state governments from regulating the pictures as they see fit?
The 14th protects our rights to life liberty or property, - and even filthy pictures are property. -- States can reasonably regulate public aspects of dealing in such property, but they can't prohibit possession, as you well know.
you keep mentioning that states may impose "reasonable" restrictions on the public aspects of pornography...but this is irrelevant to the issue of whether a state may constitutionally take ANY means to stop the public trafficing of pornographic images.
How dense. -- 'Reasonable' means that States are Constitutionally empowered to regulate, as long as individual rights are not infringed by the regulations.
The issue is simply whether individuals have the constitutionally-protected right to display [possess] pornography,
That issue has been resolved, - individual rights won with adoption of our BoR's in 1791
regardless of whether the state's action is "reasonable".
A State's laws must be 'reasonable' to be Constitutional.
2. If they do not, then does the federal government have the power, via the commerce clause, to regulate as they see fit, or is it solely a state power.
No level of government in our republic has the power to enact fiat prohibitions that infringe on our rights to life liberty or property. Get it?
-- government does indeed have the right[power] to "enact fiat prohibitions" of many types of property, such as narcotics.
Cite your support. -- No such 'power to arbitrarily prohibit' is delegated to any levels of government in any of our Constitutions. Such a power is inherently repugnant to our "Republican Form of Government".
BTW, your 'slip' about government "rights" is very telling. Very unprofessional.