[PapaNew]

I skimmed the article. I see nothing there that refutes what I said - that non-incorporation reasoning was the basis for the Slaughterhouse ruling.

"selective incorporation" is the law of the land today, bogus or not, like it or not

Well I disagree. Any law that is unconstitutional can not be legitimately be called "the law of the land" whether it's the "Incorporation Clause" or Obamacare. All laws in the U.S. are subject to the authority of the Constitution. That is and always has been the standard of the rule of law in America. If a federal law is unconstitutional it is per se an invalid law.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. Art VI, U.S. Constitution.

[Carry_Okie]

Well I disagree. Any law that is unconstitutional can not be legitimately be called "the law of the land" whether it's the "Incorporation Clause" or Obamacare.

Bogus law, as enforced and adjudicated, is law, legitimate or not.

[Carry_Okie]

I skimmed the article.

Apparently.

As to your citation of the Supremacy Clause, I don't suspect you realize that there are two ways to read it because of the unfortunate (and in my opinion deliberate) placement of the commas such as to permit a very unfortunate interpretation, one that seems to reflect the Constitution as enforced, and not as publicly understood.

For that I suggest this article, also to be read carefully. You quite apparently do not understand the depth of this problem.