[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.

[inquest]

States were bound to honor the constitution by Art VI.

The supremacy clause is only relevant to the states in cases where it can be determined that a particular provision in the Constitution restricts state action. Once it is determined that said provision restricts the states, then the supremacy clause will automatically nullify state law to the contrary. But in order for it to do that, it must first be shown that the provision in question truly does apply to the states.

The evidence so far is that the founders (of whom Marshall was one, btw) did not consider that the Bill of Rights was among the provisions that restricted the actions of the states.

[inquest]

One other thing I noticed from your post:

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.

It actually doesn't defeat the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution was written to create a federal government, and to define its powers. Marshall's ruling was consistent with that purpose. He wasn't saying that states have the power to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, nor did he say they weren't subject to the law. He was saying that the law didn't say what the plaintiff in error claimed it said. That's all.