Like today, people can review the same data and reach different conclusions. Given the stature of both Fairman and Curtis, I'm sure that both had carefully examined the material relevant to the writing and adoption of the 14th amendment. Having done so, Fairman was convinced that the 14th was not to include all of the BOR. Curtis was convinced that it was to be included. Contrary to what has been stated earlier in this thread, if the proof in the original documents was so convincing, Constitutional scholars would not still be engaged in this debate.
You are correct...and in the absence of clear language or clear evidence of intent, I would think that we would not, by inference or implication, assume such a radical transformation of the federalist system
BTW...you don't really understand lawyers do you? Lawyers can spend a month explaining to you what the meaning of the word "is" is :)