And in 1908 in Twining, the USSC found that the 5th amendment was similarly a limitation upon the national government, not the state governments, i.e., the states are not required by the fifth amendment to abstain from requiring a defendant to incriminate himself in testimony. But the first 8 amendments have been progressively extended to the states by application of the 14th amendment. For example, the fifth circuit, just eight months ago, finds the invididual model prevails not only over the national government, but also the states, and it declares that Cruikshank fails to "establish any principle governing any of the issues.." regarding the 14th amendment's extension of the Bill of Rights to limit the power of the states. "13. In United States v. Cruikshank, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), the Court held that the Second Amendment "is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." Id. at 592. In Presser v. Illinois, 6 S.Ct. 580, 584 (1886), the Court, reaffirming Cruikshank and citing Barron v. Baltimore, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833), held that the Second "amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." And, in Miller v. Texas, 14 S.Ct. 874 (1894), the Court held, with respect to "the second and fourth amendments" that "the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts," citing Barron v. Baltimore and Cruikshank. As these holdings all came well before the Supreme Court began the process of incorporating certain provisions of the first eight amendments into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as they ultimately rest on a rationale equally applicable to all those amendments, none of them establishes any principle governing any of the issues now before us." http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html