Under a principled and consistent reading of the Constitution of the United States, such powers are reserved to the states. Many if not all states' constitutions have provisions which in some measure restrict those states from infringing upon citizen's freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and religion. While such protections may be insufficient, and there may be a need for federal protections from the states, such protections should be granted by passing a new constitutional amendment, not just by reading into the Constitution stuff that--much as we might like it--isn't really there.
This is an obtuse argument on your part. According to you a state could be allowed to use a rubber hose to extract a confession from someone if it was in it's constitution.