> You seem to ignoring the amendment process as detailed in Article V No. He's using an enumerated powers argument. He's claiming that the Federal govt can o

> You seem to ignoring the amendment process as detailed in Article V No. He's using an enumerated powers argument. He's claiming that the Federal govt can only do things that were authorized by the constitution and that none of the things mentioned in the BoR were things that the Federal govt can do according. I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses say otherwise. The 14th, which isn't part of the BoR, says that states are bound in some way by something. The first cases, which had to do with state govt officials silencing, disarming, and killing freed slaves, concluded that the states weren't bound at all by the bill of rights. That's the precedent that Chicago is pushing.