You are completely wrong. You don't understand the USC, and how it has come to be interpreted over 200 years.
The fact that, for example, the USC does not specifically mandate a department of education does not make the formation of a department of education 'unconstitutional.' The fact that the USC doesn't specifically mandate the creation of the Fed doesn't mean that a national bank is somehow 'unconstitutional.'
Those things, and any others within a wide range of conduct, may be wise or unwise, and may be elective courses of action we as a society choose to take or not to take - those are policy decisions. But they don't make any of that stuff 'unconstitutional.'
It;s your kind of overstatements that harm the cause, and not help it. If you can't (or won't) accept that, you have bigger problems than I can address here.
I have a law degree and have been admitted to the NY Bar for 10 years. If you like to think you are an authority on constitutional law, enjoy yourself. Maybe even file suit to bring an end to all these 'unconstitutional' roles our government has elected to take. Good luck - you are going to need it, son.
First, I am not your son. Second, you obviously have not read any Supreme Court decisions prior to the mid 1930s. Third, being from New York I can understand why you know nothing about the constitution.Finally, because the necessary and proper clause, not to mention the commerce clause, have been misinterpreted by recent courts, doesn't mean the post 1930s interpretation is correct.
I could care less that you're admitted to a bar. Let me know when you've been admitted to the USSC bar---and argued a case before it. We'll compare notes.