Look, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If a conversation ever gets anywhere, it’s because the participants try in good faith not to get bogged down by things not central to the argument, and incorporation is useful but not central to my argument, and you are surely aware of that.
Therefore, I will concede that when I began this conversation I was implicitly referring to founders who were also framers (and no one argues Marshall to be a framer, unless you wish to distort “framer” out of all reasonable bounds), and thus confused the issue by using the broader term, and further confused the issue by referencing individuals who were not framers per se, in contradiction to my own implied definition. My apologies. It was careless of me.
However, as a result of my imprecision you have relentlessly tugged at that one loose thread, and it has enabled you to completely avoid exposing your own view of the central matter, what is natural law and how does it relate to the founder’s original constitutional design. I never get your view. You must wish to hide it for some reason.
In any event, I have not responded because I have lost faith that you wish to get to the core issues. You are intentionally hiding in the distraction I created for you. That works well in college debate class, but it does not serve the interest of patriots trying in good faith to restore a faltering country to its founding principles.
Therefore, when you are ready to defend your own view of the matter with greater transparency and good will, we may resume. Until then, I will assume you simply are unwilling to discuss the matter. Your choice.
SR
Therefore, I will concede that when I began this conversation I was implicitly referring to founders who were also framers (and no one argues Marshall to be a framer, unless you wish to distort “framer” out of all reasonable bounds
I again ask: since when is a major participant in the Virginia ratification convention that wrote the first draft of the Bill of Rights not a "framer" of that document?
The only one distorting that term here is you, and you are doing it STRICTLY out of convenience because quite simply you have no other argument to answer Marshall's ruling in Barron v. Baltimore, which establishes conclusively that the "incorporation" doctrine is a modern judicial activist pile of crap.
As to the "natural law" you keep blathering about, I have yet to see evidence that you even understand what you purport to be talking about and therefore see no further point in trying to engage you upon something that you probably do not comprehend.
Whether you went there or somewhere else, you certainly exhibit something I like to call the "Hillsdale Effect" - the process by which an idealistic conservative-leaning student is exposed to a VERY rudimentary concept of "Natural Law" while being told (somewhat correctly) that it is neglected these days in the "mainstream" politics and philosophy departments. They quickly become convinced that they have been given the "key" of "natural law" and that it is a grand unifying theory that explains how the entire world works, even as they have in truth barely scratched the surface of the concept. They then become very arrogant about having that "key" and begin applying it in discussions of PARTICULARS by inappropriately abstracting them to a general concept or rule and insisting, by way of an interpretation that they present as esoteric but which is really just a cover for a vague and shallow grasp of the concept itself, that everyone else who disagrees with them on that particular is inherently "wrong" and in fact at war with "natural law" itself by way of that misapplied and often barely even relevant general rule.
To put it another way, your "natural law" interest is probably well intentioned but your metaphysics of abstracting upon are an unmitigated disaster. So long as you are obstinate and unwilling to straighten them out, it is a complete waste of my time to engage you further on that subject...which is why I'll stick to the particular of Marshall, and yes he did speak for the founding generation when he conclusively stated that the incorporation doctrine was a pile of crap.