The Bill of Rights was not intended to put any limits on the states. They had/have their own constitutions, and many have their own Bill of Rights. The 10 amendments to the US Constitution were only supposed to apply to the national gubmint.
Actually, the ORIGINAL intent was that it did indeed put limits on the states (see William Rawles, "A View of the Constitution", written by an eminent jurist of the period). The "not applicable to the states" was invented by Southern jurists to avoid Federal interference with slavery.
Not so in the case of the Second. The language is not the narrow "Congress shall make no law" that would support your reading, but rather the very broad and illimitable "shall not be infringed" (i.e. by anybody).
Otherwise, a local sheriff could deprive you of every one of the freedoms enumerated in the BoR and several not so enumerated (just to violate the 9th and 10th), and under your reading (and the Supreme Court's, in its 1877 Cruikshank opinion, which very significantly was a Klan case involving the Force Acts), he would be absolutely unimpaired in his ability to do so.
Hence the rise of political bossism after the Civil War (or more to the point, after Cruikshank). This in spite of the ratification of 14A.
The Bill of Rights is a charter adopted by the States at ratification, it has ALWAYS applied to the States. Read for example the wording of the 6th. That additional protection of citizen rights in jury trials applies to all jurisdictions, not just Federal.
The same philosophic forces that would not join a Union that banned slavery quickly re-interpreted the Bill of Rights as “un-incorporated”. That is, judicial fiat.
Some of the 10 amendments were, some were not. The first Amendment applied only to the Federal Government. The Second Amendment was widely believed to apply to the States. There are a number antebellum State cases that affirm this.
That is not correct. Article VI of the Constitution was there long before the 14th and it clearly states that no state law could stand against what the constitution said. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment has always applied to the states, though few have recognized it.
I hear this a lot and it is false. The US Constitution was most certainly intended to cover the states.
You have a right to due process in gederal court, but also a right to due process in state courts.
Slavery is abolished not just under federal law, but state laws as well.
No law establishing a religion on you is allowed, not by a federal legislature and not by state legislatures.
Military personnel cannot be housed in your home, be they federal troops or a state’s National Guardsman.
The US constitution most certainly did limit the power of both federal and state and local governments to impose these things. That is obvious on the face of it and I’m constantly baffled why people don’t believe this.
In fact, if you are correct in that the constitution only covers the feds and not the states, why can’t the State of Utah ban abortions? You are saying that the 1st Amendment has no hold over the states, only the federal government. If that is the case, then why do states continue to impose bans on abortion, that are always founded to be unconstitutional based on the 1st amendment (Not that I believe that false ruling that abortion is protected by the 1st, just proving to you how the Federal Constitution does indeed bind the states under its provisions.)
Here is another crystal clear example. Since the 14th amendment requires ALL individuals in ALL states to pay federal income taxes, if the US constitution is not binding over the states, why can’t states simply abolish that requirement. They can’t. Not from a legal viewpoing. (Again, not saying that federal taxes are legal under the constitution, but saying that courts having found them legal, the INDIVIDUALS of ALL STATES are required to pay them. Further proof that the US Constitution covers the states).