Awwww I just love these kind of arguements: Can you trust a law abiding citizen with a gun? Should gun possession only belong with the federal govt. because a private law abiding citizen might want to misuse a gun? Same thing with this lame state argument: States can't be trusted, only federal govt. can be with inalienable rights. Just what inalienable rights are found in the BOR's given to the individule? Answer: right to due process of law before their life, liberty or property can be taken....along with right to bear arms. All other inalienable rights belong to the citizens of the State to define, guard and protect.
The anti-incorporation stance just isn't well thought out. As we can see, you didn't even address my point that without PROTECTION of rights, state governments can do whatever they want. It would be a true democracy with the dumb mob deciding which rights they want the minority to exercise. You believe that rights are given by a benevolent government. I believe rights are PROTECTED by a government that is anything but benevolent. Those rights exist despite government, certainly not because of it.