[Wonder Warthog]

"There is nothing in Rawles' writings I can see that allows the federal government to incorporate the bill of rights into the States."

If you believe that, then you cannot read. The sections I quoted say so directly. "...equalizes all and binds all... says exactly that, as does "...if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

"...restraint on both..." cannot mean anything other than the amendment applying to both federal and state governments.

It's not a case of "incorporation". The Second was meant to apply to both federal and state governments from the time of its first writing, not as a result of the 14th Amendment.

[MamaTexan]

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.

General is in reference to the general, or centralized government He goes on to specify CONGRESS.

-----

His conjecture that the BOR 'May be appealed to' should the States try to infringe on the RKBA. If something has to be appealed to, then it cannot be legal fact.

-----

Rawles is trying to have it both ways-
The following part of the 6th article has more immediate reference to the judicial proceedings of the United States, and may therefore be considered as restraints only on the legislation of the United States.

Either the Amendments affect the federal or the State governments. You can't have it both ways. Just because the BOR was 'incorporated' into the federal Constitution by the States doesn't give the federal government the ability to 'incorporate' it's BOR back into the States.

The legitimate power flows from the People, through the States and to the federal government....all the Founders made that clear.

Trying to 'reverse the flow' back into the States not only defeats the purpose of the Constitution giving the States the ability to limit federal power, it violates the concept of a Republican form of government.

Keep Rawle if you like. I think the man who wrote both the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights would have the clearest position on the matter.

----

If you believe that, then you cannot read.

Look, I like a rousing debate as much as the next person, but if you just want a target for asinine remarks, let me know now so I won't waste my time.