And you would be correct, insofar that the Court has spent the last 50 years reading into the constitution things that aren't there. So yes, this probably clashes with a whole bunch of invented constitutional provisons - just not with any of the provisions the exist in the actual written constitution.
Darn it, I have to cut out for a while (parent/teacher conference). I'll look forward to reading more when I return.
Actually over 200 years, going back to the Federalist papers that argue about what and what isn't in the constitution.
There are a lot of different schools of construction of the constitution. No legitimate school starts from the premise that it is easy, however. Even the "originalist" Scalia is an example of a first rate mind that finds it hard, and even sometimes can still get it wrong.