The Bill of Rights is not a "list of our rights," it is a list of restrictions on the federal government.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights never applied to the state governments until the passage of the fourteenth amendment.
The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and, in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated...In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. - Chief Justice Marshall Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Seems to me the intention to apply them was de facto resident in Article VI, para 2.
In that the BOR is regarded as part and parcel of the Constitution itself, it is regarded as the supreme law of the land. Therefore, anything in any State constitution which is contrary to the BOR is repugnant. For what are the Bill of Rights, if they are not the rights of the individual? Certainly not the rights of the state or federal government.
The BOR is supreme over the repugnancies of congress (laws congress passes which are not in pursuance to the BOR), over laws based upon treaties, over any court decision, and definitely supreme over any state law or state constitutional provision. The states ratified the federal constitution and agreed to that proviso by their ratification of it.
And if that is not the way it is, it will be the next time around.
The Bill of Rights is not a "list of our rights," it is a list of restrictions on the federal government.
The Bill of Rights lists some of our rights, and it restricts the federal, state, & local governments from infringing on all of our rights, enumerated or not.
Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights never applied to the state governments until the passage of the fourteenth amendment.
Art VI clearly says that our Constitution is the "Law of the Land", -- the "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".
This is a fact, not my interpretation.
"The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and, in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated... In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them." - Chief Justice Marshall Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Quoting the oft refuted opinion in 'Barron' means nothing. Marshall was proved wrong in that he ignored the clear words & intent of Article VI.