Poor form to dodge a question by asking it back. Re your #114, you cited a number of cases which seems to indicate you believe that rights do not exist until case law provides them. On the contrary -- rights are usually violated until case law clarifies their protection. Which doesn't mean they are granted, but rather that violations of those rights are eventually curtailed.
Let me help you out a little. Article VI of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
So the Framers couldn't conceive that rights protected under the Constitution would be abrogated by states, but could be in danger from federal legislators unless specifically addressed.
Re the 14th Amendment you seem to be gnawing around, it was in response to the Black Codes passed by southern states in the period 1865-1868 to deny Freedmen the protections of the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box, and out of Republican concerns that the Supreme Court would render the Equal Rights Act of 1868 unconstitutional.
The course you are advocating is a states' rights position, which fell through about 139 years ago. To argue that the Constitution applies only to the Federal government until parts of it are "incorporated" is specious, and an attempt to selectively deny the supremecy of the Constitution to fit your agendum.
Maybe RP is a clerk for a judge on the 9th Circus courts. That'd explain a lot...
I didn't think so. Can you answer it? I'd love to see you try -- I could use the laugh.
"Which doesn't mean they are granted ..."
I agree. We have rights to begin with, some are unalienable, some are fundamental. State constitutions protect those rights, and case law reflects the state supreme court interpretation of the state constitution.
The Bill of Rights in the federal U.S. Constitution only applied to the federal government. Many states had laws contrary to the "rights" protected by the Bill of Rights, actually right up to the 1960's. I've got plenty of examples.
Please don't give me the tired, "Yeah, but they were violating the U.S. Constitution all that time and it wasn't being enforced" line of BS.
"The course you are advocating is a states' rights position, which fell through about 139 years ago."
On that, I agree. The 14th, along with the 17th, undermined the individuality of the states, as evidenced by the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th.
One final question (now you have two to answer). You say the BOR applies to the states -- that would include, of course, the seventh amendment. Please tell me why I am not entitled to a jury trial in a state civil lawsuit? The seventh amendment states, " In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved ..."
(Hint: The seventh amendment has not been incorporated, that's why) "Specious" my a$$.