[tpaine]

This website very insidiously interprets our US Constitution in a pro-Statist manner. IE --- "The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."

"Pro-Statist manner"? Puh-LEASE! The concept that all the restrictions placed on the federal government by the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well is the pro-Statist interpretation of the Constitution.

The BOR's apply to ALL levels of our government. All of our officials are required to swear an oath to support the US Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land. Read Art. VI.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. At the time the Bill of Rights was adopted there were states with their own official state churches.

Yep, they were 'grandfathered' in. Big deal. Utah was later refused Statehood until they abandoned their state approved religious establishments.

This was not seen by any of the signers as a violation of the Bill of Rights. The reason? The Bill of Rights were limitations placed on the federal government by the state representatives that signed the Constitution. The states existed prior to the Constitution.

They existed as former Colonies, independent from English rule. They became States of the USA upon ratification of our Constitution.

[aruanan]

1. The BOR's apply to ALL levels of our government. All of our officials are required to swear an oath to support the U.S. Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land. Read Art. VI.

It doesn't follow that, because all officials are required to swear an oath to support the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, when adopted, applied to all levels of government. At the time, it did not. You're being anachronistic.

2. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. At the time the Bill of Rights was adopted there were states with their own official state churches.

Yep, they were 'grandfathered' in. Big deal. Utah was later refused Statehood until they abandoned their state approved religious establishments.

No, not grandfathered in. That Utah was refused statehood over state-approved religious establishments is a reflection of subsequent interpretations of the Bill of Rights; it's not an indication of original intent.

3. This was not seen by any of the signers as a violation of the Bill of Rights. The reason? The Bill of Rights were limitations placed on the federal government by the state representatives that signed the Constitution. The states existed prior to the Constitution.

They existed as former Colonies, independent from English rule. They became States of the USA upon ratification of our Constitution.

Nope. As colonies, they were not, by definition, independent from English rule. They ceased being colonies and became sovereign, independent states when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Upon ratification of the Constitution, the formerly independent states became states united under the Constitution.