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).
The due process clause of the 14th amendment.
Not true. Many states had state religions well into the 19th century. Hard to imagine Connecticutt or Massachusetts with state churches, but they had em. The First Amendment wasn't incorporated until 1947, the extent of it is in dispute.
Now ask yourself....would we be better off with the establishment clause incorporated, where the SCOTUS lords over all states, or would we be better off with it unincorporated, where the Feds have to butt out, and each state deals with the question individually? To me, the question answers itself.