[general_re]

I don't follow you. I already laid it out - Benton v Maryland, 13'th footnote. Justice Marshall writing for the Court, cites Black's dissent in Bartkus - since Marshall looks to it to support his view of the incorporation of the Fifth amendment, we may logically infer that he shares Black's reasoning, at least to some extent. And it is cited within the Benton decision itself. Therefore, Black's reasoning is shared by at least one other Justice, and by at least one subsequent decision of the Court.

Was there something else you were looking for as proof?

[Roscoe]

The fundamental nature of the guarantee against double jeopardy can hardly be doubted. Its origins can be traced to Greek and Roman times, and it became established in the common law of England long before this Nation's independence. See Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 151 -155 (1959) (BLACK, J., dissenting). As with many other elements of the common law, it was carried into the jurisprudence of this Country through the medium of Blackstone, who codified the doctrine in his Commentaries. "[T]he plea of autrefoits acquit, or a former acquittal," he wrote, "is grounded on this universal maxim of the common law of England, that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence." Today, every State incorporates some form of the prohibition in its constitution or common law.

Zero support for blanket incorporation.