[djf]

Correct. here have been quite a number of fallacious statements made here.

All states were bound therby, and were well aware of this constitutional fact.

Not true.
In O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 332, it was stated that as a general question it has always been ruled that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not apply to the States.
In Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490, it was said that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution operates exclusively in restraint of Federal power, and has no application to the States.

Both of these cases were after the fourteenth amendment.

[Ginosko]

I think it would be helpful to explore specifically how the incorporation principle of the 14th extends its reach to the 'establishment clause' when as Keyes correctly observes, "No language in the 14th Amendment deals with this power of government."

[tpaine]

It's a given that the courts are frequently wrong. That's the issue.

[WillRain]

[quote]
Not true.
In O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 332, it was stated that as a general question it has always been ruled that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not apply to the States.
In Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490, it was said that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution operates exclusively in restraint of Federal power, and has no application to the States.
[/quote]

Veeeeery Interesting.
Thank you.

[Sandy]

Both of these cases were after the fourteenth amendment.

Both were after Slaughterhouse also. See my above reply. Heck, for that matter, see your #112:

Unique among constitutional provisions, the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enjoys the distinction of having been rendered a "practical nullity" by a single decision of the Supreme Court issued within five years after its ratification.

For the record, the original intent of the Privileges or Immunities Clause was to make the Bill of Rights binding on the states. Read the Congressional debates.