Replies

In some cases, the USC limits the federal govt, in others it empowers the individual. If we are to take your interpretation, the DOI was overwritten by the USC. Why do you suppose the first 10 amendments are referred to as "The Bill of Rights"? Were they speaking of state's rights or individual rights? Let's take the 4th and 5th amendments, for instance. The 4th mentions neither the state or federal govt. It does mention the "people". What good would this amendment be since, at the time of the constitution, 99.9% of criminal cases would have been tried in state courts? The same can be said of the 5th. In your interpretation, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" would mean that a state court could compel someone to give testimony against themselves. The constitution is clear and in keeping with the DOI. Rights belong to individuals, are God-given, and "inalienable".

It's not my interpretation.
It is the interpretation of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I'm sorry they mean nothing to you, but your's is obviously not an unusual attitude these days!

What good would this amendment be since, at the time of the constitution, 99.9% of criminal cases would have been tried in state courts?

State constitutions already had protections such as those. The purpose of the Bill of Rights in the federal Constitution was to keep federal powers in line (as state constitutions kept state powers in line). The preamble to the Bill of Rights explains this.