+10

In the preceding post, I took the level beyond that of basing an opinion on that, despite their general language taken isolated from their section, prohibitions on congress in a section designated for that purpose in a similar way to how the preceding section was designated to the empowerments of congress, were also repeated in the section about prohibitions on the states. Instead I took the level of questioning why this divided approach was chosen to begin with. However, it is still hard to see what was difficult to understand or strange and unexpected to see that a constitution, being a constitution, starts with creation of the government by first focusing on building its various entities and have procedures or actions that can be done to be mentioned within that original focus. It is not unnatural then to have the can't part follow by being explained within the same separate focus. In addition, having a need or a desire to describe the can't actions from the creation side, which may be the result of feeling more natural or easier because of technicality or focusing on the power of the government and/or its entities, could be a cause for sections separated per entity for those prohibitions to make it less susceptible that those prohibitions apply differently based on the actor.   
The bill of rights, on the other hand, was focused from the start on the actions of that government toward its citizens. Is this what the court searched for "in vain"? Also, describing prohibitions from the receiving side related to affecting any citizen instead of the creation side with its various power entities makes it more applicable to use one general prohibition because there is less probable confusion that the target of the prohibition is the action itself based on the actor and not its end result.