I'm not sure I understand where your hypocrisy is. I'm all for state's rights, but not when it comes to removing federal constitutional rights like freedom of speech, religion, to bear arms, etc.
I'm being hypocritical because I reject the notion of "federal constitutional rights". I see the BoR as what it was intended to be: a Restriction of Federal Authority, not a "granting of rights".
I hold many of the same views espoused by the anti-federalists. I'm looking back in hindsight regarding their initial concerns over the adoption of th econstitution, and I see their fears not only totally justified, but that the majority of those fears they had have come to fruition.
The arguments of people like Madison, who wanted a limited federal government but still supported the adoption Constitution, have been proven wrong (and these were teh one's that ended up swaying the anti-federalists in the end).
The Hamiltonian, powerful federal government, mindset ended up winning.
The Bill of Rights came into existence to appease the anti-federalists, who feared that the constitution created a
Federal government that was too strong and had too much authority. The BoR wasn't meant to
increase federal authority over the states by denying
the States powers. It was designed to
decrease Federal authority over the states and the people by denying the
federal government certain powers.
Incorporation of the Bill of rights not only contradicts that very clear intention of the BoR, it actually causes the exact opposite of what they were intended to do to happen.
It's impossible for me to honestly reconcile
my political views with any instance of incorporation of the bill of rights. Even if I personally agree that nobody should be denied those rights. My personal beliefs and my political beliefs (at a federal level) are
often in conflict. It's a natural byproduct of my political ideology.