Disagree. I agree that SCOTUS has interpreted it that way, but disagree that it's a correct reading The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect us and the states from the federal government. I've read Patrick Henry, George Mason, Madison, and Jefferson's (though he wasn't there) writings to one another and notes of the ratification convention and at no time was the Bill of Rights proposed to protect the minority from the majority. I also read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. The Anti-Federalists, to whom the Bill of Rights was a concession in order to secure ratification in Virginia, were adamant that the new constitution granted too broad a power to the new government to not have explicit checks against it. Mason and Henry especially were quite prophetic. The Bill of Rights was fashioned heavily after Virginia's Declaration of Rights (authored by George Mason), which was also intended to protect Virginians from their new government and not from one another. Each bill places an expressed limitation on the government and not on any person or group of people. The structure of the federal government and the electoral college system is designed to protect us from tyranny of the majority, but the Bill of Rights is not.