keokuk, As I previously stated, the Bill of Rights was merely a list of rights already held by individuals and rights that were protected by the government, not granted by it. It does not matter how long the incorporation argument has existed – it is inherently flawed. Our natural rights cannot be infringed upon by any government. And it is explicitly declared in our Constitution that the document is the “supreme law of the land,” as well as any laws made in pursuance thereof. None of its clauses need to be “incorporated” against the states for them to be applicable, including – and especially – the Bill of Rights. They are already the “supreme law of the land” by virtue of their very existence in the Constitution. To claim that these amendments need to be “incorporated” in order for them to be valid is absolutely absurd. They are already the supreme law and the states cannot do anything to abrogate them, nor can they simply ignore them without legal or other repercussions. If the states want to further limit their own power over their citizens, then they are welcome to do so. However, as a minimum, they must abide by the limits on government expressly dictated by constitutional law. No opinion or decision by the judiciary is necessary to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. The incorporation argument sounds like a bit too much judicial arrogance to me. And perhaps a bit of state stubbornness as well.