The incorporation doctrine didn't exist during the time of the Founders. The incorporation doctrine didn't protect the citizens of New London, did it? Nor does it protect California gun owners against gun confiscation, or kids at a football game from being able to say a prayer without the local school board prohibiting them, or Barack Obama from making it legal to hold US citizens in Guantanamo without trial.
How exactly has your precious incorporation doctrine made the country better? You probably dutifully voted for Reagan and Bush, only to see two of their nominees side with tyranny in Kelo, so he is 100% right in saying that "the notion that the judicial branch of government serves as a watchdog to curb legislative and executive abuses has been entirely exposed as an illusion."
He is right to say that it's "phony", because it is. The incorporation doctrine replaced Constitutional Amendments with Court Decisions, and we've all suffered for it. It's easier to fight City Hall than it is to fight Washington, and now the Kelo decision is codified into Supreme Court precedent instead of being something that the local community could fix. Without question, it WOULD have been better if the Supreme Court had never taken the case. I thought that that would be obvious.
The incorporation doctrine depends on the good nature and wisdom of the judiciary to protect the freedoms of the people. That has been exposed as a farce, so Paul is right on all counts.
I don’t want to debate the incorporation doctrine. I agree with it, there were Founders (Madison for one) that were for it at the Founding, but it took a civil war to implement it. Anyhow, that wasn’t my point, my point was that it would hurt Paul if people knew it, if not because of Kelo then because of McDonald v Chicago or any number of other cases. Theres no way he’d still have the amount of support he has if people knew he thought states should be able to ban guns or have whatever gun control laws they want. His campaign would be over.