[inquest]

The Barron decision wasn't 'passed'

I know. My sentence referred to when the Bill of Rights was passed, not when the Barron ruling was handed down.

IMO, barron was a cynical attempt to appease the south, and avert war. -- Do you have any citations from that time period to suggest that it wasn't?

If it was a political decision, then it would have generated controversy. Particularly, if it was designed to placate the South, then there would have been significant opposition up North. If you go to a seach engine with terms such as Barron, Baltimore, controversy, it'll come up with nothing to speak of. Compare this to the reaction to Taney's ruling in Dred Scott vs. Sanford. Like night and day.

[tpaine]

.
The Founders intended for the political branches of government to be subject to the law - i.e., the Constitution - and as well intended for the judiciary to declare the meaning of that law. If the political branches contemn the courts on such matters, they are in effect announcing that they are behaving outside the law, and that they recognize no restraints upon their discretion. This defeats the whole purpose of having a written Constitution.
7 -inquest-

I agreed with your comment above , as did Marshalls decision of 1803.
- His Barron decision does not, as it, in effect, says that state governments are not subject to the laws/principles of our BOR's. This defeats the whole purpose of having a written Constitution.

Now, you claim:

"We were talking about whether whether the Barron decision was consistent with the received understanding of the BOR at the time it was passed." -inquest-

Obviously, I repeat, it was not consistent. States were bound to honor the constitution by Art VI. There was no exception for the BOR's.