THE BILL OF RIGHTS Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

..."guarantee of freedom of religion ..."

The courts have changed this to mean, guarantee of freedom FROM religion!

Sure. The states of a federation agree to strictly abide by certain rules, else they will be cut off. Otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of having a federation.

"Were this to be brought to a court of law however, one might argue that by agreeing to the BOR that the states recognized particular individual rights"
But that is just what happened in Barron, the Supreme Court case I gave you a link to, and Marshall shot it down.

And I think you do realize that their rejecting Madison's limits on the states makes it ludicrous to say they didn't.

And that Jefferson advocated to Madison a BOR for the federal government, not a federal one for Virginia.

Break out a book and read up on the era ( Patrick Henry detested any and every power of the federal government over the states! Marshall and Madison argued with him and Mason over every federal power at the Virginia Ratification Convention), discussions on Free Republic got me to fit in an occasional book on our founding and founders.
It's so much more interesting a subject now that I'm a grandfather than it was when I was a schoolboy.

I just finished one on Madison's retirement after his presidency. His biggest frustration? -That people were disregarding what the meaning of the Constitution had been to those who had written and ratified it!

"no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases"

Personally, I would have objected to the wording here not because it is too broad, as you suggest, but rather because it is too narrow. The fact that is says "no state" could be interpreted as to exempt the federal govt. My argument here may not be with your reading of the founding father's intentions, but with the founding fathers themselves. I have not read enough on the founding of the constitution and the BOR to say for sure, but the way I see it, if the BOR were to guarantee rights of the individual over all levels of govt, it would be an empowerment of the individual over govt rather than an empowerment of the federal govt over the states. I do believe that Jefferson would not have objected to binding all levels of government with one document. I am not sure others would have agreed.

As for the Barron case, the Supreme Court has had the duty of interpreting the constitution for two hundred some years now and in that time has made plenty of specious arguments. The recent case regarding McCain-Feingold is a perfect example of what judicial inbreeding will get you. I sincerely believe you can find far more convincing arguments in forums like this one than in the hollowed chambers of those black-robed megalomaniacs.

You are my new hero. Great post.

We need to spread that far and wide. Or is America past the point of caring? Much of FR seems to be.

BTW, I heard that some California farmers were forced to "quarter" national guard troops who were searching for marijuana. Have no clue as the the veracity of that one, though.

Good post, but I have to side with mrsmith.

If some amendments say "Congress shall not...", it seems obvious that the founders intended that as a restriction on the U.S. Congress alone, not the state governments.

Other amendments clearly apply to all levels of government.

I chalk this apparent oversight up to political infighting among the founders, many of whom wanted no restrictions on the states.

Aside: Mr. Paine, the way you quote back excerpts from various posts is very confusing. You might want to consider italicizing the quotebacks or using a different font or something. I can't figure out which are the quotes and which is your responses to them.

If some amendments say "Congress shall not...", it seems obvious that the founders intended that as a restriction on the U.S. Congress alone, not the state governments.

Only the first line of the 1st amendment is so intended. -- Just as Jon Roland explained:
"If we examine the debate in the First Congress more closely, however, it seems clear that the restriction to "Congress" in the article that was to become the First Amendment (when proposed, it was the third) was only intended as a prudential tactic to avoid opposition to its ratification from the many states that then had "establishments of religion", mainly in the form of taxes that were more or less fairly distributed to at least churches of most protestant denominations in the state.
Within a few years after adoption of the Bill of Rights on December 17, 1791, every state that had "established" religion had either adopted their own constitutional amendments disestablishing religion, or simply discontinued the practice. But the language of the First Amendment remained.

Other amendments clearly apply to all levels of government.
I chalk this apparent oversight up to political infighting among the founders, many of whom wanted no restrictions on the states.

Exactly.. -- It makes no sense that the rest of the 1st amendments restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, & petition would appy only to the fed congess.. -- The "right of the people" to assemble is even specified.

Aside: Mr. Paine, the way you quote back excerpts from various posts is very confusing. You might want to consider italicizing the quotebacks or using a different font or something. I can't figure out which are the quotes and which is your responses to them.

Sorry bout that, but I do try to keep every separate post labled by name & number.. -- Html is a clunky system..