[tpaine]

I said that the 1st amendment was not binding on the States and that is clearly shown by the post-Constitutional existence of State established churches and the trials of Federalist journalists and publishers critical of Jefferson.
Since the 1st amendment was directed at Congress it had no bearing on the States. The rest of the BoR did apply to the states and I never denied it. But there is a big difference between the 1st and the rest. It does not say that the states must do anything nor does it affirm any rights of the citizens as the others do.

You just ignore Art. VI. - Written & ratified before the BoR's -- Thus, you deny the clear original intent of the constitution.

You are very confused apparently to have attributed such a false statement to me. Actually I agree with you about the BoR except for the first amendment which instructs Congress what laws it cannot enact. The rest instruct the States what rights they must respect.

You are not authorized to pick & choose which amendments states are required to obey. They are bound to honor the entire constitution.

The constitution cannot prevail unless it is read and understood it does not empower itself to survive. Survival is only possible if citizens take the time and make the effort to understand what it actually says. Fools believing they understand it when they don't do it no service.

Yep. - It's time you saw that your advice also applies to you.

[inquest]

You are not authorized to pick & choose which amendments states are required to obey.

Just as you are not authorized to pick and choose which sections of the Constitution you want to pay attention to. You keep harping on the "clear wording" of Article VI, but when someone points out the clear words of the first amendment - "Congress shall make no law..." - it just seems to go right over your head for some reason.