[Spiff]

Well, I think that pretty much frames the discussion. You believe that state governments have the right to trample the liberty of their citizens, unfettered by the Federal government. And that view is shared by, well, practically no one.

State constitutions must be framed in such a manner that the state governments are similarly restricted from trampling the rights of their citizens. A requirement for inclusion in the union for a state would be that the state constitutionis written similarly to the U.S. Constitution and that it limits the state government from enacting laws restricting freedom of speech, right to arms, etc.

My view is that of original intent of the Constitution - not the "living document" that too many people believe exists. I'm shocked that so many people were so ignorant of the original intent that they would let the incongruous 14th Amendment be written as it was and ratified (oh wait, it wasn't properly ratified).

[lugsoul]

This hypothetical requirement that state constitutions conform to the prohibitions in the Federal constitution - tell where that requirement is found in the constitution? And isn't that contrary to your entire point - that the Feds can't tell the states what to do?

You can backpeddle all you want - but why not deal with the issue on the Constitution we have, instead of one we might theoretically have? Since your requirement regarding state constitutions does not exist, do you take the position that a state can ban the exercise of a specific religion, and there is no Constitutional problem with that?

Oh - you seem to be picking and choosing between which parts of the Bill of Rights the states would be required to adopt and which they would not. How do you determine, for example, that the states would be required to include freedom of speech in their constitution but not the prohibition on establishment of religion?

Kind of funny that you rail against a "living Constitution," while you are rewriting it wholesale.