I agree with you that the incorporation doctrine is no part of Constitution and is judge made. You do cite how the Constituion is to be amended, but that does not negate the fact that the Constitution, as originally intended, was to grant specific limited powers to the fed gov while all others belong to the states or people.
Are you arguing that the original intent of the Constitution is to apply against the states too?
His argument is that the Supremacy Clause applies the U.S. Constitution and all the amendments, including the Bill of Rights, to the states from the time of ratification.
Yes, I realize that's crazy, especially given the wording of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the actual purpose of the Supremacy Clause, documented constitutional debates, the wording of the first amendment, actual U.S. Supreme Court case law, the need for the 14th amendment, and common sense.
Just .... let it slide.
Parts of it clearly do. States are prohibited from maintaining a Navy or Army, they are prohibited from collecting tarrifs on goods exported to or imported from other states. They are forbidden from making treaties with foreign nations.
But if you mean the Bill of Rights, that is subject to debate. Except for the first amendment, which clearly states *Congress* shall make no law.
However the original intent of the 14th amendment was to apply the BoR to the states. That's how it was understood by both proponents and opponents. Only some "Men in Black" who didn't like that notion, read it differently.