[mac_truck]

States' rights advocates are not alone in their opinion that the BOR applies limits only to federal power. There are many who believe this, and they are not totally unjustified - that is to say, I have not seen a convincing argument that the opposite is true. The BOR is, after all, amending a document ordained and established for the United States of America.

Are you suggesting the freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc. enumerated in the Bill of Rights does not apply at the state level? That the state government can put limits on these freedoms, and only the federal government cannot?

How many state constitutions even have these rights enumerated?

[Gianni]

Are you suggesting the freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc. enumerated in the Bill of Rights does not apply at the state level? That the state government can put limits on these freedoms, and only the federal government cannot?

I'm suggesting that the presense of such declarations in state constitutions certainly makes it look that way. I wonder if anyone has insight into the ratification debates on the BOR to see if the (let's just pick one:) Virginia delegation really thought that 9 of the 13 could put restrictions on what they could do at the state level?

How many state constitutions even have these rights enumerated?

Just out of curiosity, I google'd up a few. Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia all explicitly enumarate freedom of religion, assembly, speech, rights of the accused (basically fully redundant to federal BOR). Iowa is one of only 4 states that does not have a state counterpart to the 2nd, but I think that may have been more a function of the times (1857).