[risk]

So the second amendment isn't supported by the bill of rights? This is basically what the non-exclusionists are saying. They sound like anti-gunners who think they've found a loophole in the second amendment that proves that militias aren't comprised of individuals. Not happy with the constitution? Find a technicality. That's the true essence of the judicial activism we decry as conservatives. That's wrong.

[rottweiller_inc]

What? This has nothing to do with the second amendment. The first amendment specifically prohibits congress from making a law establishing religion. I order for your theory to work that the 14th amendment was made with the intent of applying the constitution, which was incidentally created to form a federal government and define its' powers, to the states the 9th, 10th and the part of the 1st prohibiting congress would've had to have been repealed. What we have here is not the federal courts deciding the constitutionallity of any laws, but rather federal judges usurping the lawmaking powers delegated to congress, not only that the federal jurists are doing what is specifically prohibited in the first amendment by establishing atheism as the federal religion.