[RKV]

You point out that courts have failed to enforce the Constitution and that legislatures pass unconstitutional laws. No news there. You have ignored the counter-examples posted above in the text of the Constitution itself (e.g. Article 6) and in the quote from Dred Scott. Plainly put, incorporation is a pernicious doctrine designed to get around the plain meaning of the Constitution. Do some courts rule on the basis of this erroneous doctrine? Yes. Are they wrong to do so? Yes. Now we are in the position of having some absolutely terrible case law to deal with.

[Dead Corpse]

Notice how all the cites he uses are from this century, post-WW1 when all this crap started. It has been an incremental march since then.

Also notice that something so fundamental as a right to protect ones self and ones property is so cavalierly tossed aside as a government granted permission in rp's mind.

[RKV]

I beg your pardon, I should have been much more clear. I consider the doctrine of "partial incorporation" to be in error. I recognize that there are plenty of scholars and jurists who support theories which make the BOR partly applicable to states or not at all. My reading of history and the 9th and 10th Amendments (Article 6 and other parts of the Constitution as well) makes me find such arguments to be wanting in logic.