[rottweiller_inc]

And if the First Amendment is not applicabe to the States (by way of the Fourteenth Amendment), some states could have freedom of speech and press and other states could forbid private ownership of newspapers or make it illegal to criticize state officers.

"the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment 10 would cover that.

[Scenic Sounds]

"the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment 10 would cover that.

Well, I understand the argument. I guess you understand that that argument was rejected a long, long time ago in favor of the argument that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (it came after Amendment 10) requires that states honor some of the freedoms described in the First Amendment.

I guess, if we wanted to, we could do a U-turn and allow states to ignore freedoms described in the First Amendment, but how many people really want to do that?