Incorporation occurred only because the states began to violate the rights bestowed by the Bill of Rights.

Think about it this way...

If you believe that the founders intended this nation to function as a conglomeration of nations under one banner (a states rights position) then you believe that the states are the center of power and should be beholden to no one, not even the Constitution because as you've stated the Constitution does not apply to the conduct of states beyond foreign relations.

How does that jive with the commentary of Jefferson and Adams? It doesn't. How does that jive with rationale behind declaring independence? It doesn't.

The entire friggn point behind coming to the New World was to seek individual autonomy. Why then would these great scholars write a document that outlines a Bill of Rights and NOT mean for it to apply to all people across the nation?

If we are to hold your position, the Bill of Rights would be unnecessary because the states would have the power to make the decisions and the federal government wouldn't. The federal government would not be a truly "governing" body, it would merely be a microcosm of the UN and thus outlining what it can't do would be superfluous.

No, the founders knew better. They understood that federalism would indeed occur which is why they put the Bill of Rights into the Constitution (as most of them were still around and playing politics when the Bill of Rights was adopted).

Confederation & Constitution: Bill of Rights: James Madison Proposal: Speech

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

Read Madison in his proposal of the Bill of Rights... He speaks clearly about the rights of the individual and their need to be protected.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

First the ERA amendment was screwed cause it's proponents had to go to each individual state level to pass it and they were up against propaganda all the way. One of my sisters still believes it was all about making us use the same restroom.
Screwing the poor? To receive health care under the new laws they would have to move or do without.

**But since my views are always evolving in the political sense, Let's see what happens.
Maybe those "crazy Americans" will do something extraordinary once again.

__________________
218 Days till Christmas

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215. For instance, grand juries and the phrase "due process" both trace their origin to the Magna Carta.

He is simply speaking of the fifth amendment. Nothing more. He was not speaking of the Bill of Rights in its totality.

He was talking about ARTICLE 5, not the 5th Amendment. Please follow the link and read

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

The colonies had now expelled all the British authorities and become states. As Thomas Paine explained in Common Sense, there was no reason to return to the unsatisfactory royal system. Congress unanimously approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, resolving "that these United Colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent States."

And then the Constitution eliminated that notion. It's very nature limits the rights of the states. So again... Going back to what people wanted is a different story than going back to what they actually did. They created a federalized bill of rights to force the states to protect the rights of the individual. This very idea creates federal supremacy of law.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

It was actually put in to limit Federal Power over the states. Don't be fooled. Why do you think it took so long to be ratified?

It took so long to be ratified because the states didn't want to give up "power". They still don't. Incorporation is a good thing, not a bad one. It was suggested and advanced by Madison. Founders intent.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

Just by definition, constitutional amendments--all constitutional amendments--must be passed by the "individual state[s]."

I do believe the ERA would likely have passed, had its proponents not insisted upon leaving "up to the courts" the question of how it might apply to religious organizations. Those of us who believe fervently in the doctrine of freedom of religion do not believe that a few black-robed individuals should ever have it within their power to instruct individual denominations and sects as to how they must practice their respective religions. For instance, fundamentalist sects that apply to contemporary society Paul's admonition for women to "keep silent" in the church--and that therefore reject the concept of female ministers--should remain free to practice their understanding of "that Old Time Religion," however retrograde it may (and does!) seem to me.

Well, I remain very much opposed to ObamaCare, as you know.

But this is really not about that matter, except tangentially. Some of us are just weary of the federal government's high-handedness in recent years.

For instance, when the state of Montana (about a year-and-a-half ago, I believe) declared, through state legislation, that any firearms manufactured within its state borders that did not leave the state, could not be made subject to the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution; and could not, therefore, be regulated in any way by the feds; many of us applauded. Loudly, and without restraint.

(An addendum: Since Montana is contiguous to you home state of Idaho, you may be more familiar with this matter than I am.)