[inquest]

At first glimpse, from a modern perspective, it may seem like what you're saying is correct, but it's a known fact that where the Constitution uses passive negative construction (IOW, such-and-such "shall not be" done), it was intended to only apply to the federal government - because it's a Constitution of the United States, that is, a Constitution whose primary purpose was to create a federal government and define its powers. In those instances where a state is prohibited from doing something, the Constitution specifies by saying "No State shall...." To see that fact brought into sharp relief, compare Sections 9 and 10 of Article I (for example, the parts about bills of attainder and ex post facto laws). You'll see what I mean.

[Demidog]

In those instances where a state is prohibited from doing something, the Constitution specifies by saying "No State shall...."

Yes, but these instances are prohibitions on states attempting to assume overlapping jurisdiction.

There's a difference between that and the rights listed in the bill of rights. The tenth amendment makes it clear that rights are reserved to the people. They are therefore off-limits to the states.

[ffrancone]

Is it a "known fact" that follows only from the fact that the constitution was a constitution of the US? Or are there deliberations from the constitutional convention that suggest this to be the case?