Yes, I think the speaker ignores the supremacy clause. The Bill of Rights have always applied to "the people." He is right that the Supreme Court has treated the Constitution like it is a flexible document, but he fails to mention that the Supreme Court's flexibility was not in line with the meaning of the Constitution and has led to some very bad decisions.

@@twc9000 exactly. For restricting them. Not a people.

The Constitution does not apply to US citizens.

@@officialjunot So it's for limited Governments to leave people alone and do business as a total people helper. Why all the monstrous overloarding we ran away from ? We need to rid the brainwashing at school Programming about what most think then ! I have PhD's that do not know most of what goes on in all secret money, admiralty, maritime......law merchant one way supposed contracts...on and on. They do not want to listen because it's fraudulent really, to hand you paper that you have no clue what sneaking up on you and handing you paper is about..😂

The federal Bill of Rights was written with the explicit understanding that it would not apply to the States. James Madison proposed an amendment to incorporate parts of the Bill of Rights and it was outright rejected by Congress. Thomas Jefferson explained in 1804 that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, nearly 30 years before the Supreme Court made its ruling (September 11 letter to Abigail Adams). The preamble to the Bill of Rights also makes it abundantly clear - its purpose was merely to "prevent misconstruction or abuse" of the federal government's powers, not the States'. In another sense, the entirety of the Bill of Rights can be summed up by the 10th Amendment. The central government has no powers except those which are delegated. All other powers are left exclusively to the States. Is there a delegated power to restrict free speech, establish religion, or infringe the right to bear arms? No. The first and second amendments are simply a list of some of the powers which are definitely *not* delegated to the federal government. Each State already had its own Bill of Rights. So why would it make sense to make yet another one? It's because the *federal* government didn't have one.

Barron v. Baltimore simply affirmed the universal understanding of the framers that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. Thomas Jefferson explained to Abigail Adams in a letter from September 11, 1804, that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not to the States.

Didn't ignore but embraced company search on Dunn and Bradstreet one can locate the corporate state, corporate town municipal government even the local police department all for profit corporation along with the "federal corporation" UNITED STATES

Sorry wrong interpretation of question

Seems as though we have double-speak on an incorporation v to incorporate into. As they do for $. Collections and eating out our substance, through their excessive bonds. For wars and their own gvt run departments.

To control commerce of legal entities in the corporate states. This is by regulation and taxation. Only the people born in the constitutional state have the right to be free (under no legal restraint) if they choose to understand what is going on a secure this status. Right now the corporate governments are bringing in communism through their public policy.

@@24revealer facts

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q557gKmdldmcY2w.html

Okay. Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not the States. This was upheld unanimously by Barron v. Baltimore (1833). Then in 1925 the Supreme Court used a vague phrase in the 14th Amendment to rule that parts of the Bill of Rights now apply to the States.

He signed a document putting this country an extra 9 trillion dollars in debt. And he's going to make you pay for it.

Trump is not on our side. He is part of the corporation. Every president since Lincoln is part of it. Republican or Democrat; same f’ing thing! Two wings of the same bird.