I raised incorporation primarily to show that the Court has repeatedly found it necessary to respond to the pressure of natural law inherent in the constitutional system, a pressure that was designed into the system by the Founders.
Except you've "shown" no such thing, but rather merely asserted it to be so. Your assertion is similarly suspect as it has been made despite tangible evidence that the incorporation doctrine (which has been used, among other things, to regulate and infringe upon the public exercise of religion, to legalize abortion as a uniform national policy, and to essentially erode away any meaningful value of the entire 4th amendment) has been utilized in a way directly contrary to the expectations of the "natural law" you blather about in vague and apparently inconsequential platitudes.
I'd also add that there is an inherent logical contradiction in asserting the founders "designed" something "into the system" that directly contradicted their explicit words, asserting that very thing NOT to be a part of their system. And that much has been repeatedly demonstrated to you, despite remaining unanswered save for the same repetitive retreat into the aforementioned platitudes.
There is not so much as a word in your "offered quotes" that necessitates the establishment of the incorporation doctrine you apparently seem to see in them, or even intimates at it for that matter. Comparatively, there are many explicit words in my quotes from a leading constitutional figure of the founding that directly repudiate the incorporation doctrine. Therefore you should find no surprise in the conclusion I have drawn as to their relative weakness against the Baron ruling, as well as why I have paid them no more attention than they merit.
Very well then, we are wasting our time. And I guess Hamilton doesn’t count as a leading founder either. Fascinating. Well, it’s been fun, I learned a lot. Thank you. SR.