So you claim that the 5th Amendment (which includes the Takings Clause) is not applicable against the states (under your theory that Barron v. Baltimore is still good law even after the ratification of the 14th Amendment), and you think that it’s a “strawman argument” when I call you on it? Seems to me that if the individual protections afforded by the Bill of Rights do not apply against the states (as you claim), then a state could indeed take your property by eminent domain without having to compensate you for it (the state constitution *could* afford such protection, but it need not do so).
I agree with you that the way in which the individual provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied against the states leave a lot to be desired: the Court had used the Due Process Clause rather than the Privileges or Immunities Clause; the Court did not incorporated all of the individual provisions at once as the amendment purports to do; and the Court actually incorporated one provision that is not an individual right and which cannot be applied against the states without violating the clause itself (I’m referring, of course, to the Establishment Clause, which is a protection afforded to the states themselves against a federal law “respecting an establishment of religion”). However, it is not an affront to originalism to recognize both that (i) Barron v. Baltimore was correctly decided back in 1833 and (ii) the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, changed the Constitution to provide for the application against the states of the individual protections of the Bill of Rights.
Not as far as the Framers intended.
it is not an affront to originalism to recognize both that (i) Barron v. Baltimore was correctly decided back in 1833
It's more in the nature of an unsupported falsehood.