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.
You may not AGREE with what Rawles says, but do NOT try to tell me that his plainly written paragraphs don't mean what they so plainly say.
"General" means that it applies to ALL governmental usurpation of the RKBA.