Of course the states are bound by it. But you're trying to tell me that Article VI, Section 2 applies everything in the U.S. Constitution to the states.
No? You're not? You're saying Article VI, Section 2 applies the Bill of Rights to the states, are you not?
Gosh, does that mean states can print money? Hey, that's in the U.S. Constitution. Doesn't it also apply to the states, as per your convoluted logic?
Or are you willing to admit that parts of the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government and parts to the states and that Article VI, Section 2 says that the contract (the U.S. Constitution) is binding on both and supreme over every other contract?
You need to think a little and not simply parrot something you saw.
A completely hysterical argument on your part...
The US Constitution lays out what the duties of government are. Can a State print money? No, (and neither can the Federal government, as they may only MINT money) but they may issue gold and silver Coin for payment of debts. The document lays out some things very specifically. Some things it says only the Federal government can do, and reserves other things for the States or the People. But the States are bound to it as a whole, not that the State may ACT as the Federal government. That argument is specious, as are most of your assertions.
If the Federal government is prohibited from an action bearing upon the rights of the People, so are the several States. Hence the word ‘inherent’ our Founders were wont to use. We have inherent rights that may not be infringed, by any governmental authority, be it Federal or State. Or by your beloved BRTs. I get the impression that you work in the ‘legal’ profession. You have a tendency to bastardize words and concepts, warp clear meaning, and try to obfuscate the meaning of the word ‘is’.
Willian Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Charles Schumer do the same thing.