You're referring to the section that deals with trade, or a FEDERAL matter. Unless, you're trying to make a connection through interstate commerce? It's been done before, so who could blame you for trying again, but some of us conservatives haven't given up trying to point out that the interstate clause is a judicial over reach.
2. Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people...
...should they decide that they want to define public decorum.
For instance, when the first draft of the first amendment was written, it was feared that it was too stringent and would force the closure of the then established state religions, demonstrating that the first amendment was to limit the federal establishment of religion, but not the state established religions.
I rest my case.
Article XIV: 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Of course, we were talking about the first amendment and the framer's intent. Interesting that you are finally able to buttress your belief in the supremacy of the central government with the amendment that was fraudulently ratified by the "great centralizer 80 years later." It appears, however, that you missed this escape clause, "... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Besides never being lawfully ratified, the fourteenth amendment has other problems in that it attempts to circumvent congressional ability to define the jurisdiction of the courts and making illegals equivalent to citizens. In summary, swearing at your toilet isn't polite social behavior, but let's not make a federal issue out of it, okay?
I cited I.10 as one of the counterpoints to your claim that the Constitution only limits the feds. I have no idea why you brought the Commerce Clause into this.
For the record, I agree with Justice Thomas, rather than Justice Scalia, on the original meaning of the Commerce Clause.
Which of the two do you think has it right?
...the amendment that was fraudulently ratified by the "great centralizer 80 years later."
My favorite Justice, Clarence Thomas, appears to accept XIV as legitimate:
Justice Washington's opinion in Corfield indisputably influenced the Members of Congress who enacted the Fourteenth Amendment. When Congress gathered to debate the Fourteenth Amendment, members frequently, if not as a matter of course, appealed to Corfield, arguing that the Amendment was necessary to guarantee the fundamental rights that Justice Washington identified in his opinion.
--Saenz v Roe