[lugsoul]

Kyptonite, that is an old argument that has been dispensed with by an entire body of constitutional jurisprudence. Simply stated, the admonitions of the 14th Amendment are incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states - that is, the Bill of Rights establishes some parameters of "liberty," and no state may deprive a citizen of that liberty.

Under your argument, a number of other things would also be permissible. For example, a state could pass laws limiting free speech. A state could establish a state religion. A state could restrict freedom of the press. Under the text of the First Amendment, only Congress is prohibited from doing such things. Do you think that state governments are allowed, for example, to criminalize open criticism of the state government? If your interpretation were correct, there would be no bar to a state doing so.

[Kryptonite]

Constitutional jurisprudence didn't mean a damn thing to the SCOTUS when they overruled their own sodomy case last week.

And the 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, was a reaction to slavery, not a codification of anything remotely resembling a clarification of original intent within the Establishment clause. Under my view, the states have the power to tax, the power to criminalize conduct that might not be criminalized by Congress, and so forth. Under your view, they wouldn't.