> Most of the cases that are usually cited were, upon close reading, decided based on clauses in various state constitutions. Yes. One of the arguments against

> Most of the cases that are usually cited were, upon close reading, decided based on clauses in various state constitutions. Yes. One of the arguments against adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution was that the states already had similar clauses. That was the reason why they're amendments and not part of the original Constitution, in fact. The argument went something like this: "Here's your new Constitution! Please ratify it." "Um, there's no Bill of Rights." "Well, the states already have Bills of Rights." "Yeah, that sounds like a loophole waiting to happen. Add a Bill of Rights or I'm not ratifying it." "Fine, fine. I promise that if you ratify it, we'll amend it with a Bill of Rights the first chance we get."