I believe that the Founding Fathers listed the Bill of Rights as those that no state nor the federal government could infringe upon. That's why state cases get appealed to the highest court in the land -- the Supreme Court -- the entity that rules on the Supreme Law of the Land. If I'm wrong, I'm willing to listen.
Some parts of the Constitution explicitly limit what States can do. (For example, Article I, section 10, says that no state may pass a bill of attainder or ex post facto law). In a decision in 1830, the Supreme Court court said that the Bill of Rights limited the federal government, but not the states. Later cases applied that explicitly to the 2nd Amendment. Then the 14th amendment came along, and said that states could not violate the "privileges and immunities" of their own citizens. Since the 1920s, the Supreme Court, in a long series of cases, has held that the 14th amendment requires states to comply with most, but not quite all, of the Bill of Rights. There has been no case in the Supreme Court since those decisions which has explicitly answered that question as to the 2nd Amendment.
I believe that the Founding Fathers listed the Bill of Rights as those that no state nor the federal government could infringe upon. That's why state cases get appealed to the highest court in the land -- the Supreme Court -- the entity that rules on the Supreme Law of the Land. If I'm wrong, I'm willing to listen.
I'm just an amateur at this, and you know we're not supposed to try this at home, but I believe that the only time State matters are to be brought to the Supreme Court is for the Supreme Court to rule upon whether the existing laws were applied properly, due process was followed, and court procedures were proper. I mean, the Supreme Court does not rule upon whether a person is guilty but upon whether the State conducted the trial properly in which the person was found guilty. Right? Sometimes I have a hard time conveying my point - I hope you understand what I'm getting at here.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, as we're a Republic (Rule of Law). But that doesn't mean that everything in the Constitution applies to the states. The Constitution sets the terms and conditions for Congress to meet and be elected, but it doesn't set those terms and conditions for the State Legislatures, does it? If a State wanted a State Senator to only serve 4 years in the State Legislature, then would you say that the conditions in Article I for a 6-year term for Senators supersede the State's desires? No.