It’s clear this author isn’t a Constitutional scholar, as he states. There are two major errors in the following sentences at the heart of his argument:
“Using what’s called the ‘incorporation doctrine,’ the Supreme Court has argued that the 14th Amendment, which was meant to protect the basic rights of former slaves after the War for Southern Independence, magically turned the Bill of Rights into a list of individual rights.”
The purpose of the 14th was to protect freed slaves - individuals - from being deprived of their rights, specifically including 2nd Amendment rights, by the states. Thus, “incorporation” was the entire point of the Amendment. It didn’t “magically” turn the Bill of Rights into a list of individual rights. It explicitly did so. (Aside: The Privileges and Immunities clause should be the basis for this, not Due Process. However, P&I got gutted in the Slaughterhouse cases, and the SCOTUS has never admitted the Court botched that ruling for various reasons, so they shoe-horned the same goal into “Due Process.”)
“If this is true, as the Supreme Court is about to declare once again in the Chicago case, then federal law trumps state law anytime the court sees fit, completely ignoring the Bill of Rights’ intended purpose of limiting federal authority.”
The 14th isn’t a “federal law,” it’s a Constitutional Amendment, approval of which involved the states. Thus, it trumps all federal laws, state laws, and even state Constitutions. Furthermore, because it amended the Constitution as it stood before its ratification, it by definition modified (”trumped”) the Constitution and the first 13 Amendments. That obviously includes the 9th and 10th Amendments.
“Furthermore, because it amended the Constitution as it stood before its ratification, it by definition modified (’trumped’) the Constitution and the first 13 Amendments.”
BTW, by that I don’t mean the 14th “overturned” the Constitution, but to the degree the Constitution and first 13 Amendments conflicted with the 14th, it, well, AMENDED them.