well i will work here to clean up my meaning.
first with the founders, Madison and Hamilton, both men were against a bill of rights, claiming it would be dangerous to have such a thing. because it listed rights, their argument was that a bill was not needed at all, becuase it was impossible for the federal government to violate the rights of the people, becuase the governments powers were very limited, and none of them intersected with american citizen....the only possible citizen the government could be involved with was the pirate, counterfeiter, or the traitor.
our founders did not create a bill of rights for states but only the federal government, to stop them from infringing on our god-given rights, as their federalist and anti-federalist argument show, added to that the 1833 USSC decision 5-0 which declared the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and not the states.
I disagree strongly with this last paragraph.
First that "1833" Supreme Court case you repeatedly reference, really did not deal with rights at all, but rather more with the state having responsibility for its own actions. Despite your not having specifically referenced that case, I believe it to be Barron vs Baltimore. This case involved John Barron, who owned a wharf in Baltimore harbor, suing the city of Baltimore for having diverted water-flow in the construction of streets, resulting in the wharf area being filled with silt and sand and being too shallow to serve as dockage.
The entire intent of the case was to insulate the states, or in this case the city government, from damages caused directly by their own irresponsible action, which is something we would reject today for a wide variety of reasons, and without reference to the Bill of Rights.
However Chief Justice John Marshall's argument here is not just corrupt, but reaching the level of buffoonery. Marshall considered the Constitution generally, and asserted that passages of the Constitution that are not specifically stated to apply to the states, are not applicable thereto, which is true. As example, Marshall specifically referenced Article 1, Section 9 "prohibitions to congress" and specifically the prohibitions of Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws, stating that these do not apply to states. Despite this fact, many states themselves specifically prohibit this sort of clearly tyrannous legislation, and if they did not, today's courts would strike down any law demonstrating these applications.
However Marshall took this appraisal of the Constitution generally, and then mistakenly applied it to the Bill of Rights, specifically. when this entire country is founded upon the recognition that those rights are innate to the individual, and unalienable, and not limited to their recognition in the Constitution.
Today, the idea that these Bills of attainder or ex post facto laws might be enacted by the states, would result in those state legislatures being raised to the ground Indeed most state constitutions have prohibitions of those two things as well, and no law would pass muster from those states even if these prohibitions did not exist.
Any government doing these things, be it state of federal, would be, or should be, justifiably be burned to the ground.
Marshall's enormous oversight, so enormous that it can only be deliberate corruption, is failing to recognize that the Constitution only defines the federal government, and the terms of involvement of the states, people and foreign governments with that federal government. However that Bill of Rights is not presented there as being only applicable to the federal government, but solely as emphasis to the boundaries specifically applied to that federal government derived from those rights, giving the Constitution its structure and definition.s.
Those "rights" may well be only referenced there in application to the federal government, but the topic in the Constitution is only the federal government, and those rights were quite obviously not created by that document.
But in an even broader perspective, those rights are undeniably recognized to be "unalienable", unable to be taken, denied, or even willfully given away, ... and this includes for the states themselves.
If our rights can be denied and alienate by those states, then there is no point in recognizing any rights whatsoever! If the states might deny the right to due process, free speech, or even the right to keep and bear arms, then it really is irrelevant that the federal government is prohibited from those denying those rights.
Quite obviously that Bill of Rights does not exist merely because of the Constitution and the Federal government, but because of those rights being innate to the individual regardless of the Constitution and what it asserts about the terms of existence of that federal government.
You're fond of referencing the founders, and the Federalist papers. Kindly point me to any one of the founders writings, anywhere in the federalist, or outside of them, where those founders indicate in ANY APPLICATION whatsoever, that it is for some obscure reason infinitely preferable that the states themselves deny rights, rather than the federal government?
The fact is, it does not exist.
There are a lot of Supreme Court decisions that are not just wrong, but grossly wrong, even intellectually deficient, and corrupt, and this is one of them.
as to state constitutions, ever since the USSC court has ruled the states must obey the federal bill of rights after the civil war, it is the citizen that DOES NOT anymore look at their rights of their state constitution, but look at the federal one.
How is it possible for you to recognize that the Federal government does not grant the rights in the Bill of Rights, which I believe you do recognize, and then turn around with this sort of comment involving the states themselves actually having the authority to fabricate rights, or even deny them?
Do the States have some sort of special box they might pull magical rights, or right-denials from, that makes these fabrications somehow deified by Nature's God? Perhaps this is the divinely authoritative "box" to make up the meaning of marriage itself, turning the very meaning of rights on its ear as well?
Did this country's founders revolt against Britain because they believed the colonies each had the authority to make up their own rights, rights that George was failing to recognize?
Does the Declaration of Independence declare the right of the colony-states to make up whatever rights they want, and proclaim this authority throughout the land, and to the world itself? No, that's not at all what the DOI indicates of rights at all, nor the federalist papers.
if our nation with its states was still following their own constitutions only, instead of the states following our federal, states could have created laws which the federal bill prohibits the federal government from doing, but they still would have to remain true to the the founding principles of life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which are the fountain of all the constitution are nation has.
if i did not clear up my meaning please let me know.
How is it possible for those states to have written laws that might still be promoting "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness", yet be in disregard of the those rights held universally by each individual?
Perhaps you believe those states are deliberately set aside and recognized to have ongoing sovereignty, so that they might promote the life, liberty and happiness of but a few, benefited by the denial of the rights of many, but if so, where the hell is this enormous caveat indicated anywhere in the DOI, or even the Federalist?
Oh, you did indeed clear up your meaning, but that did not dispel the expanding clouds of tyranny that are settling in from that meaning.