-- 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?
Of course the Constitution is the "supreme Law." For reasons cogently explained in the Federalist, either it is the supreme law, or it is ineffective. But you leap from that jurisprudential verity to the conclusion that restrictions and definitions in the Constitution should be ignored.
When the Constitution says "Congress" it means Congress. Is that hard to understand? By your logic, the restriction of the Presidency to native-born Americans over the age of 35 should also be ignored, because the Constitution is the supreme law. Therefore, anyone should be allowed to run for President. You seem to think that the Constitution is overruling itself on the subject of the Bill of Rights.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You should leave alone subjects that you do not understand.
Congressman Billybob