Yes - they truly are silly. He never posited that the treaty was in the Federalist Papers, he said the land within said treaty does not fall within the bounds orf the clause in the Constitution you cited.
You have at least twice now been intentionally and sophomorically obtuse. In light of this, your pretense of having read the FP with any understanding, if at all, is laughable.
Well, at least I finally got you to make your argument. Thanks.