But you're just being circular. How is it 'clear' that 'through incorporation' the 14th Amendment alters the First Amendment? It doesn't say that. There is no language to indicate that. Only Supreme Court decisions handed down a century later start to make this claim. And if 'incorporation' covered altered the First Amendment why did it not alter all of the Bill of Rights Amendments? Even the most liberal Supreme Courts haven't made that claim -- they have always claimed that only they can read the mystical tea leaves that tell them -- but not us -- which are the magic amendments that have been incorporated and which have not. The originalist position is simply saying that if the amendment does not have any language to say this -- and the 14th clearly doesn't -- well, then it should be re-drafted to say what you meant it to say.