and nothing in your statement is contained in the Constitution.<quoted text>
You don't read very well, do you dolt?
"The national government is one of enumerated powers, and a power enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to Congress is comprehensive and complete, without other limitations than those found in the Constitution itself...."
"...The Constitution is a written instrument, and, as such, its meaning does not alter. Its language, as a grant of power to the national government, is general and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces all new conditions within the scope of the powers conferred.
"In interpreting the Constitution, recourse must be had to the common law and also to the position of the framers of the instrument and what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of the grants of power contained therein must be considered...."---U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905).
however you shoot yourself in the foot by now claiming the Court can interpret the Constitution.
something you claimed the Supreme Court has no power to do.
therefore the Supreme Court CAN interpret the Constitution and there is no clause in the Constitution telling the Court how they interpret the Constitution.
in other words the justice's can choose their own method to interpret the Constitution.
they are under no obligation to refer or consider anyone's commentary.
that being the case the Federalist papers have no legal standing at all.
so you are still trying to sell snake oil.
show the clause in the Constitution that requires the Supreme Court to refer to anyone's commentary.