To say then that Marshall "had no role in the creation of those founding documents" is thus not only counter-historical, but inexcusably ignorant of basic American history. It is also telling to this particular case. If the Bill of Rights emerged largely from the Virginia convention in large part at Marshall's hand, then it follows that he would know more than almost any other founder of its intended original role as a constriction on the federal government rather than the states and thus possesses PRIMARY authority to speak against incorporation as an eyewitness.
Not that any of this will convince you. You've already amply demonstrated that you're a true believer, wrapped up in a bizarre fixation with a vague concept of "natural law" that you barely even understand yourself. You strike me as someone who took a college course or two from a professor who was all wrapped up in the "natural law explains everything" branch of political theory. My guess is he was probably either a Straussian or his own smaller cottage variety of self-defined "natural law" conservatism. I suspect there's a good shot of him being at a Hillsdale, or a Claremont-McKenna, or another of those little niche conservative liberal arts colleges, though there are also a handful scattered in some of the bigger state universities so that cannot entirely be precluded. But for whatever reason, you grew to idolize that professor, thinking he had given you the keys to the world. What he did in reality was leave you in a rut of freshman semester Political Theory, so that here you are years later still spouting cliched lines of John Locke-this, John Locke-that, and still trying to prove and reprove essay question #3 from the midterm wherein you were given the not-terribly-imposing task of demonstrating the Declaration of Independence drew inspiration from the Second Treatise of Government, or some other similar common test of whether the students were actually sleeping through the lectures but little more. That same rut has also impaired your ability to not only move beyond your generic grasp of "natural law," but to also make any meaningful application of it in the particular to any specific question of government and policy. Thus, when I attempt to engage you in a discussion of what Marshall specifically said about the incorporation doctrine, your only answer is to dredge up some unspecific quote of little Alec Hamilton vaguely blathering on about "natural law" much as you yourself do, though applied to no end, much as is the case with your own arguments. And when that fails you, your final retort is to put the remainder of your ignorance on full display by frivolously attacking Marshall's bona fides as a founder in a way that immediately exposes how little you know of Marshall or the founders at large. And just who were you quoting the other day again as a representative "founder," all while dismissing Marshall today...Poor King Rufus? So setting aside how 'bout them apples and other such formalities, I will close by offering you one piece of advice: expand your philosophical reading list. Natural law is not a bad thing by any means, but it isn't the grand unifying theory of how our government works either...or at least not at the very cursory and amateurish level you seem to understand it. It's time to step beyond Professor-so-and-so's American Government 102 or else you will only continue to embarrass yourself in these discussions. That is not an intended insult, Springfield. It is a statement of fact, offered constructively in the slim hope that you might find an interest in bettering yourself and your argument from it. But since the operative word there is slim, I do not consider myself optimistic.
No, a ratifier is not a writer or a contributor in the sense of original thinking. However, I understand that defining the scope of who the Founders really were is a debated issue. I really limit it to those who made the most notable contributions to the creation of the original documents, not to its broader acceptance in the states. Again, as a matter of best evidence, authors should take precedence over voting delegates, and the precedent tributaries of thought such as Locke and others, should be considered important and even dispositive if the authors so regarded them.
Sincerely, I am not trying to be difficult. The legal studies I undertook at over 50 years of age did not come to me as from a divinely inspired professorial idol talking to a young and easily overawed mind, as you suggest. Initially, I contested the issue. Being more of a traditional Calvinist, direct, divine revelation was more my notion of how universal moral principles were communicated to the human soul.
However, my mind changed as I studied, again reading directly from Augustine, Aquinas, the Greek classics (I only read Koine, and that badly, so pardon my skipping the Attic), and of course Descartes, Locke and many others. Modern sources as well, reflecting on the same general problem domain, such as Budziszewski, Robert George, and the like.
So no, I do not have some bare-bones context into which I am mindlessly throwing the phrase “natural law” like some potent talisman. I believe there is a moral contour to the universe that any soul may find, and so strong it is, that they may feel it even when they cannot see it. And I believe there is evidence the Founders not only saw it that way, but designed their Constitution deliberately to accommodate it. Hence the inalienability of the rights to be protected.
Which is why I sincerely do not understand how anyone, especially with the kind of vastly superior erudition you claim to have, could think the Founders, almost all theists, would allow their design to be so compromised that genocide would be permissible in the states under their notion of federalism. I really, really don’t get that. These were smart guys. Why would they set themselves up for failure in such a critical part of their mission?
As for Incorporation, it is a bit player in the drama, a piece of evidence for my argument that the grander design existed, and that is how I offered it, if you will review my introduction of it. You decided to latch onto Marshall’s resistance to it in a takings case, as your entire proof of universal opinion among the Founders. If you are in so lofty an educational status as you would have me believe, why are you relying on a single datum on a line of evidence that is not even the central issue? Does that really meet the rubric of a credible academic proof?
I am trying to be nice, and I have not derogated your intellect or education as you have mine, but I simply don’t see why you are defending the islands whilst I take the mainland unopposed. I am still a good learner after all these years, and I hope you will do me the kindness of giving a more well-rounded response to my inquiry, and help me see what I am missing, rather than simply lambasting me for my intellectual deficits without informing me what you actually believe about what natural law is, and how it may or may not have a role in comprehending the federalism of the primordial founders.
I am all ears. Really. Just ask my wife. :)
SR