We were talking about the antebellum Constitution, as it stood during Marshall's tenure, remember?
Your attempt to limit it, to avoid the reality of the 14th, is obvious, so yes, I 'remember'.
----------------------------
Why do you need more evidence?
More evidence? You haven't provided any evidence that the Founders intended for the BOR to prohibit state action.
The words "prohibited by it to the states" aren't evidence? --- The 10th is a common sense summation of the intent of the BOR's...
...which was to restrict the power of the federal government.
You haven't provided any evidence that the Founders did not intend for the BOR to prohibit state action violating individual rights.
How you can read the 10th as a prohibition on state action is utterly beyond me.
Why you WANT states to be able to violate the BOR's is beyond me.
----------------------------
Posing a 'might-have-been' question is hardly making a straight conclusion
There's no "might-have-been" about it. The federal courts are using your interpretation of the Constitution to abuse their power.
'They' use ANY means possible to abuse their power. -- 'My' interpretation, that of an original intent to uphold individual rights, fights both fed, state, & local abuses.
--- The absurd 'states rights' position says that rights can be abused by state & local officials despite their oaths to honor & defend our BOR's/Constitution.
----------------------------
And, - any 'reversal' is in your imagination.
Of course. I only imagined that you first acknowledged that the feds are a worse abuser than the states, only to cite isolated state abuses as an excuse for keeping an abusive federal power.
Good grief, now you claim I want to 'keep' "abusive federal power"?
Get off it, calm down, and try to make some rational points.
They're evidence of the fact that there are provisions within the Constitution that restrict state action. Like the supremacy clause, it provides absolutely no guide as to what those specific provisions are. Crazy that I should even have to explain this.
You haven't provided any evidence that the Founders did not intend for the BOR to prohibit state action violating individual rights.
Sure did. At #30. Want some more evidence to ignore? This is from the Massachusetts ratifying convention, one of several state ratifying conventions which insisted on a bill of rights as a condition for approving the Constitution:
"And, as it is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this Commonwealth & more effectually guard against an undue administration of the Federal Government [emphasis added], The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution:" Source
Massachusetts, it should be emphasized, wasn't normally a "states' rights" kind of state. It had a strong manufacturing and merchant base, which naturally tended towards a desire for a central government strong enough to protect their interests. Nonetheless, they weren't interested in the kind of federal power which your interpretation has readily provided for.
Why you WANT states to be able to violate the BOR's is beyond me.
It's beyond me, too, since I never said they should be able to violate people's rights.
'They' [the federal courts] use ANY means possible to abuse their power.
As good a reason as any to leave them with the fewest possible avenues for doing so. Thanks for making my point.
Good grief, now you claim I want to 'keep' "abusive federal power"?
I don't care whether you want to or not. Your interpretation of the Constitution does that job regardless.