How have other judges and legal scholars challenged the conclusions and arguments of the anti-incorporationists, and what competing theories of the due process clause did they offer as alternatives to the theory advocated by the anti-incorporationists?

Over the course of U.S. history, judges and legal scholars have argued that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee constitutional rights and liberties that are essential to a person’s right to be treated with fundamental fairness by the national government (Fifth Amendment) and state governments (Fourteenth Amendment). Some of these judges and scholars, however, reject the idea that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” any of the Bill of Rights, making them directly applicable to the states. Rather, they believe that the rights and liberties found in the first ten amendments are applicable to only the national government, and that any rights applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are separate and distinct rights. What arguments have been made by these “anti-incorporationist” scholars and judges to justify their conclusions regarding incorporation and the meaning of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? How have other judges and legal scholars challenged the conclusions and arguments of the anti-incorporationists, and what competing theories of the due process clause did they offer as alternatives to the theory advocated by the anti-incorporationists? Fully explain all parts of your answer.