Not so.
Your blog is wrong.
Bingham clearly intended to have the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States.
Just like Kelo vs. City of New London the SCOTUS got it wrong.
Despite Bingham’s intention that the 14th Amendment apply the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to interpret it that way. In the 1947 case of Adamson v. California, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that the framers’ intent should control the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and he attached a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from Bingham’s congressional testimony.
. . it is . . . clear by every construction of the Constitution, its continued construction, legislative, executive and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. The House knows, the country knows . . . , that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of eleven States within this Union, within the last five years, have utterly disregarded the behest.
BLACK, J., Dissenting Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
332 U.S. 46
Adamson v. California
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0332_0046_ZD.html
Let's not look at Bingham's actual words. Let's go by dicta in a losing dissenting opinion by a hardcore leftist and former Ku Klux Klan member.