[robertpaulsen]

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is missing:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[R. Scott]

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is missing:

This is generally considered the preamble, and is included:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The section you posted dealing with the administrative procedures for the Bill of Rights is not generally considered part of our Constitution.

[djf]

Here is the federal government's position:

Bill of Rights and the States.--One of the amendments which the Senate refused to accept--declared by Madison to be ``the most valuable of the whole list''12--read: ``The equal rights of conscience, the freedom of speech or of the press, and the right of trial by jury in criminal cases shall not be infringed by any State.''13 In spite of this rejection, the contention that the Bill of Rights--or at least the first eight--was applicable to the States was repeatedly pressed upon the Supreme Court. By a long series of decisions, beginning with the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in Barron v. Baltimore,14 the argument was consistently rejected. Nevertheless, the enduring vitality of natural law concepts encouraged renewed appeals for judicial protection through application of the Bill of Rights.15


The Constitution of the United States
Analysis and Interpretation
Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, 1992 edition