What is the rational for some of the amendments in the bill of rights being incorporated but not others?

Question

I would think that if some of them applied, then they all should.

I am talking about them being incorporated (eg. applied to the states.) The 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th and some say the 8th have not been incorporated.

Answer 1

If you're referring to amendents being incorporated as applied to the states, this is an interpretation by the Supremes.

For example, the 4th amendment (typically referring to search and seizure) really applied to the federal government, but the Supremes held that it was applicable to the states via the 14th amendment, thus incorporated.

Not sure if this is what you meant. Typically, unless there's a challenge there would be no reason for the Supremes to incorporate or make applicable to the states.

Answer 2

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. I'm not aware that any of them have been amended.

If you were referring to ALL the amendments to the Constitution as being the Bill of Rights, your are going to have to explain what you mean further. Which amendments are not being applied, in your opinion? I'm afraid if you want any decent answers to this question, you are going to have to be more specific.

Please define what you mean by "incorporated." Can you give a specific example?