I have some bad news.

Citizens don't have access to the Bill of Rights against the federal govt

Instead, certain protections are
granted as "protection" by the Federal govt from the State govt overreach. But it's a sham.

It's called the "Incorporation Doctrine".

Recall that the 14th amendment was created as a status for former slaves. They assigned the same federal citizenship status over time to those who would have been "State citizens."

The feudal law is the only system of law that assigns a
Persons political status as a function of geographic location at the time of birth.

Birthright citizenship isn't the right of the individual who's born.

It's the property right of ownership of the federal govt over the individual born on the Sovereign's soil. The federal govt owns it's citizens, as property. That's how income tax is legitimized. Free people don't pay tax on their labor.

Fortunately, citizenship is defined as voluntary. But you have to know how. Everyone's assigned two statuses at birth.

Search for "8 USC 1401(a)" and you'll see that I'm correct.

The method is so easy that nobody can believe it. Send one pice of paper to one guy, and you're out. They can't refuse, but the courts will try to pretend otherwise.

Also, you may want to confirm my assertion about the Incorporation Doctrine.
Don't take my word for any of this. You have to read these things from official sources.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

Cornell University Law School

LII Wex incorporation doctrine

Overview.
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which parts of the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Incorporation applies both substantively and procedurally.

Prior to the doctrine's (and the Fourteenth Amendment's) existence, the Supreme Court found the Bill of Rights to only apply to the Federal government and to federal court cases. During the signing of the Constitution, every state in the negotiation had different levels of concerns with a too powerful Federal government, and the preamble to the Bill of Rights highlights the importance of the Bill of Rights in limiting overreach by the newly created government. The Supreme Court noted that the Bill of Rights was clearly intended to limit only the federal government (see Barron v City of Baltimore (1833)). States and state courts could choose to adopt similar laws, but were under no obligation to do so.

After the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court, through a string of cases, found that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth amendment included applying parts of the Bill of Rights to States (referred to as incorporation). A lot of contention surrounds whether the Fourteenth Amendment should incorporate any substantive rights, with opinions from Supreme Court justices ranging from complete to no incorporation (see substantive due process). Rather than find that the Due Process clause incorporates all of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court supported selectively incorporating rights that the Court finds as essential to due process. Under selective incorporation, the Supreme Court incorporated certain parts of certain amendments, rather than incorporating an entire amendment at once.

Some argue that the Privileges or Immunities Clause is a more appropriate textual basis than the due process clause for incorporation of the Bill of Rights but because Slaughter-House Cases dealing with this clause are surrounded by controversy this theory is not supported by the majority of the court.

As a note, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment have not been incorporated, and it is unlikely that they ever will be. The text of the Tenth Amendment directly interacts with state law, and the Supreme Court rarely relies upon the Ninth Amendment when deciding cases.

I'd like to sit down and have a chat with Colion Noir.

What up brotha?