Due Process and Bill of Rights Incorporation: Why Not Article V + Supremacy Clause

[Mr. Knowitall]

As you apparently can't read, that would be a waste of time.

I can't help wondering if the OP is really looking for an explanation of what he's missing, or if what he's really looking for is for someone to proclaim that he's found something that's escaped the attention of Constitutional scholars for years, and bring him fame and notice and...dare I suggest it...fortune?

He's missing original intent. If he wants to go read the Federalist Papers, the writings of the Antifederalists, the Bill of Rights, and the record of the associated debate as well as the subsequent century of case law applying the Bill of Rights, nobody here is stopping him.

[JBrahms53]

Guess not. Interesting that you'd take the time to reply to impugn my motives in posting, but can't be bothered to respond to the substance of the question. You might want to reexamine your priorities.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Nobody questioned your motives. You demonstrated that you don't understand what we're talking about, and admitted that you have no knowledge of the subject matter, then insisted that your arguments be treated as if they were genuine constitutional scholarship that justified ignoring the entire history of the Constitution... that was the problem.

[JBrahms53]

Your inability to interpret English sentences is remarkable, Mr. Knowitall. I was responding to cbg, who was impugning my motives, in a manner that said far more about him than myself: honi soit qui mal y pense.

It's typical of your inability to understand the English language that you believe I'm asking you to take my question as "constitutional scholarship." If you can't even read my sentences, let alone interpret my obvious intentions, how can you pretend to interpret the intentions of dead founders? Telepathy?

I asked a simple question, and anyone with basic constitutional knowledge will be able to answer it. Clearly this forum boasts of no such person. Not only can't you answer it, you can't even grasp the basic meaning of my sentences, or those of your friend cbg. Shouting over and over again about time machines does not count as intelligent debate, except perhaps among indigents and escaped mental patients. Your lack of a basic critical ability to understand communications and respond to them appropriately is really astonishing. It would be interesting to get inside your head and see how you manage to navigate the world without such basic critical functions, the same way that it would be interesting to see how a fish thinks: both of your modes of thought processing are so foreign to normal human functioning that it would at least have the interest of a curio.

[souperdave]

The OP ventures so far into the abstract that it's for the most part absurd. Then The OP berates responders for pointing out the quite obvious. It appears to me to be simply for the sake of being trollingly argumentative that the OP ventures so far into the abstract.

The OP may very well be under the impression that their concerns are genuine given the flagrant use of big words and abject references. The OP puts out queries that are so far out there that there is/are no logical means to address said queries. Then, when the OP is called out on such, they see fit to "impugn" one who is arguably the best, brightest, and most knowledgeable member of any internet advice forum that I have ever seen.

To what end? Possibly the OP has some sorta self-righteous delusion that gives them the impression that they have the capability to stump-the-expert so to speak. Failing miserably at that, the OP spews forth such a wildly diverse plethora of drivel in what is obviously a vain attempt to appear that they had some sort of valid line of query. Then berates the expert responses stating that they are so far wrong there is significant comprehension deficits.

I'd give that a B+ grade on the effort. Nice try, but the OP ends up with an F for the final grade. With a little notation on the 'paper' under the F: "You are quite possibly the most eloquent, albeit under-educated, troll that I have ever seen!"

[cbg]

I'll sum it up more briefly.

Your question has been answered. That you either choose not to believe the answer, or are incapable of understanding how the answer applies to your question, is no fault or concern of ours.