It seems to me a severe fault of your BOR doctrine that one needs to assume those who wanted a Bill of Rights were dupes of the 'consolidationists'!
Isn't it reasonable to suppose they knew what they were doing and that Mason knew the amendments would only decrease the power of the federal government over the states, just as he wanted?
He did know a thing or two about Bills of Rights after all.
Barron fits perfectly with Marbury.
In Marbury Marshall ruled that the court could not exercise powers that were not given to them by the Constitution (issuing mandamus writs), just as he ruled in Barron that they could not exercise powers not given to them by the Constitution (enforcing the Bill of rights upon the states).
mrsmith wrote:
That would make Mason the fool for insisting upon a Bill of Rights
wouldn't it?
_____________________________________
How droll. Two bumpkins arguing that some Framers were the fools.
Mason? Fool? No, he was one of Virginia's great dissenters. He insisted on the Bill of Rights to blunt some of the damage (consolidation) to state autonomy that the Supremacy clause did. If the Bill of Rights had protected the State judiciary from the Federal, he probably would have assented.