Thanks for your thoughts, Norm. It seems the French have a much more developed popular antiglobalist discourse than we do. Naturally, because we imagine we have benefited from globalism, but that is debatable. Examples:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3WQ6BbZT664.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yI2Z3zgcOj4
Sorry, Don, I'm not tracking you. Is it that we are submitted to elite tyranny in the area of demographic manipulation, and also in gun control? Because the Supreme Court has placed some limits on state and local gun control legislation? I don't see the parallel, because local governments have had zero control over refugee and immigrant settlement, while there is a wide range of gun control regimes. Our state legislature passed a successful concealed carry statute, and city law enforcement is very active in collecting illegal firearms. So I don't see the same democratic deficit in the two areas. In immigration, there is quite a lack of political competition because the biggest donors, symbolically the Chamber of Commerce and SEIU, agree on bringing in as much cheap labor as possible. There is definitely a democratic deficit, though, where a community would like to legislate firearms out of existence and a distant federal court says no way.
You might enjoy John Taylor's New Views of the Constitution, which I learned about from Schlesinger's informative Age of Jackson. Taylor points out that Hamilton and Madison actually failed to get their monarchizing and centralizing schemes adopted by the Constitutional Convention, but nonetheless made themselves the foremost interpreters of the Constitution they didn't want, wrenching it towards their party at every opportunity. Puts quite a different spin on the term "Federalist." Under his theory, I don't think a federal court could nullify a state gun control law.