"His mentor and close friend Thomas Jefferson chided him: “A bill or rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference” (Letter to James Madison, July 31, 1788). Accordingly, Madison assured the Virginia ratifying convention that he would work for rights amendments after the Constitution took effect. He kept his word. Within a month of being elected to the first Congress, Madison began drafting a Bill of Rights. He winnowed over two hundred amendments proposed by the state ratifying conventions down to nineteen amendments. The Congress approved only twelve. Among the ones it rejected was an amendment that would have made the Bill of Rights applicable to the state governments as well as the national."
The underlined was the only point I was trying to make.
And, Congressman Billybob, perhaps you can correct the other historical morons who insist that the first eight amendments of the BOR, when written, applied to the states as well as the federal government? (Since you seem to be in the "historical moron correcting" kind of mood.)
Which you have failed to make, as the point is redundant, given the supreme "Law of the Land". [see Art VI]
And, Congressman Billybob, perhaps you can correct the other historical morons who insist that the first eight amendments of the BOR, when written, applied to the states as well as the federal government? (Since you seem to be in the "historical moron correcting" kind of mood.)
I doubt that B-bob will respond on point, as he has appeared unwilling in the past to defend our Constitutions supremacy clause. -- That clause seems to give a lot of lawyerly types problems.
I've long surmised that this may be due to the fact that if the clear words of our BOR's/Constitution were followed, it would throw many of them out of work.
I would be interested to hear what Billybob has to say about the applicability of the BOR on the states subsequent to passage of the 14th Amendment, especially since the debate in the Senate clearly indicated that the intent was to apply the BOR to the states (as I quoted from the Congressional Record earlier on this thread).
However, the Court applied this new doctrine piecemeal and selectively. One by one it "incorporated" various Amendments against the states. However, to date the Court has left the 2nd Amendment (and the 27th, also part of the BOR, out in the cold and unenforced).
Whether or not the incorporation doctrine is legitimate, it is probably too late to go backwards and reject that doctrine. However, it is clearly a dishonest doctrine as long as some parts of the BOR remain unenforced. (Sadly, intellectual dishonesty is, all too often, par for the course on the part of the Supreme Court.
I trust that answers your questions.
John / Billybob
Post Script: Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. I was on the road all day today.