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.
Horsesh*t Billybob. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, introduced the 14th Amendment, specifically stating that the privileges and immunities clause would extend to the states “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments.” What happened subsequently is that a bunch of Democrats hijacked the case law and created the partial incorporation or non-incorporation theories out of nothing. You know better - original intent does matter.
Thank you for settling this issue.
Please read post #239.
Would incorporation of the Second Amendment have any disadvantages with respect to Federal encroachment on the RKBA?
Does having the Second Amendment unincorporated help protect the RKBA from Federal encroachment?
-- 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.
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.
Billybob wrote:
The first words of the First Amendment are, "CONGRESS shall make no law ...." It is crystal clear that the Bill of Rights was written to restrain the power and reach of the federal government only.
Not true. Those "first words" do not lead to that conclusion.
The BOR's are part of the supreme "Law of the Land". - Thus, it is crystal clear that the Bill of Rights was written to restrain the power and reach of all levels of government, fed, state, & local.
The 9th & 10th amendments then prove that it is the peoples rights that are protected from powers not delegated to the US, nor prohibited by the constitution to the states.
Our RKBA's is quite clearly enumerated, and is not to be infringed. - Period. ---- Such infringements are prohibited to States by the 'Law of the Land'. [See Art. VI.]
As a self proclaimed constitutional lawyer who has argued before the USSC B-bob, -- it is simply mind-boggling that you cannot address the simple facts I've outlined above.
Why is that?