I already said why. You weren't paying attention. I've already said the anti-federalists were worried (and rightfully so) that a central government was too dangerous to control and would become despotic. (They were right - it just took longer than they thought.)
McDonald v Chicago clarified that.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) clarified nothing. As usual the Supreme Court prefers overturning the Slaughterhouse Cases without expressly admitting such. They just use language like "defunct" and "should be rejected" without a sound constitutionally-based rationale (this is ALL ABOUT the incorporation doctrine BTW) failing to consider glaring problems like the absence of ANY debate in Congress prior to the 1868 ratification even though incorporation would give the feds sweeping powers never before contemplated by the Founders or ratifiers. The proof is on the side of ratifiers having no intent to allow such huge increase in the feds' power.
Re: 124 - “...They just use language like “defunct” and “should be rejected” without a sound constitutionally-based rationale...”
Where in McDonald v. City of Chicago due the Supreme Court use that language in the Main Opinion, Concurrences or Dissents?