They are a list of restrictions on the federal government, not on the states, as Justice Marshall pointed out. Our rights don't come from the Bill of Rights, they come from God. If the supremacy clause applied the BOR to the states, then the Fourteenth amendment would not have been necessary.
Per the Tenth amendment The feds aren't supposed to be able to act outside their enumerated powers, but they have usurped powers they shouldn't have from the states and from the We, the people.
As a matter of fact, the Fourteenth amendment WASN'T necessary. It was a creative device which I refer to as the doctrine of substitution. All Congress had to do was pass an act, (or even an E.O. by the president) that freed slaves are heretofore to be considered Citizens.
That would have immediately ended the concern over the treatment, protection and acceptance of blacks and others who were in a state of political fog after the civil war, for the word, Citizen, was already defined in the Constitution.
BUT
In order to do that, the constitution would have to be amended anyway to change the definition of the word, Citizen (upper case) and to re-define the percentages of what was considered to be a full human being.
Instead, Congress went straight for the amendment, creating a substitute word, 'citizen,' (lower-case) for Citizen, and embellishing the amendment with suitable phraseology describing and acknowledging something that was similar to unalienable rights enjoyed by Citizens.
Congress can't grant unalienable rights, so it merely re-described and acknowledged them for blacks and other non-Citizens, while creating a protectorate for them to enjoy those rights and privilidges -- the Federal United States, which over-layed the union of States geographically.
I think they did the right thing under the circumstances.
But that in no way dimished the supremacy of unalienable rights, both enumerated and non-enumerated, of Citizens, IMO.