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.
Each state had to meet certain requirements at the time of their entry into the union. Those requirements were not laid out in the Constitution, but were requirements that were given to the states in order for them to be called states and given entry into the union. The requirement for a proper constitution guaranteeing the protection of the rights to the people of the states should have been met at that time. Thereafter, the only guarantee that the Federal government has over the State government's practices is that the Federal government has to ensure that the State government remains a "Republican" form of government.
do you take the position that a state can ban the exercise of a specific religion, and there is no Constitutional problem with that?
Before the misinterpretations of the tortured 14th, there would be no Constitutional problem with that. I would not want it, and I'm sure the voters in the state would not want it either. But it is left up to the state, like it or not, under the original intent of the Constitution.
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.
Even a weak reader of the Bill of Rights can see that those amendments were obviously written to limit the Federal government. Again, what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you think applies to state governments under the original intent?
Kind of funny that you rail against a "living Constitution," while you are rewriting it wholesale.
I'm not rewriting anything. I'm sticking with the original intent of the Constitution. Twisted interpretations, emanations of penumbrae, tortured logic, judicial activism, jurisprudence (ie. st acking bad decisions upon bad decisions), and plain ignorance are what is rewriting the Constitution.