Look at John Marshall's decisions handed down from the Supreme Court bench, in which, vide supra, he insisted that the United States is a Hamiltonian centralized state. That was not what he argued when the Constitution was up for ratification: then he argued it round. Later he argued it flat, because he was a partisan Hamiltonian using the Supreme Court bench to try to reinterpret the Constitution, even with its Antifederalist Bill of Rights (yes, the BoR was the child of the Antifederalists who disbelieved Hamilton's lies about the government's respecting the rights of individuals and the reserved powers of States).
John Marshall tried to renege on the ratification compromises of 1787 from the bench by reinterpreting them. In doing so he followed John Jay, the first Chief Justice, who was also a Hamiltonian and did the same thing for the same reason. Neither of them ever respected the compromises the Federalists had had to make in 1787 with majority opinion, which was opposed to the strong powers they proposed to give themselves, in order to secure the assent of the Peoples of nine of the thirteen States, and once in office they tried to go back on them.
That's one example. The Hamiltonians won, and now we are taught in school that the Federalists were noble Founders, when they were liars, scoundrels, and wheeler-dealers determined to make the federal government their toy. We are also taught -- as you evidently were -- that their interpretation of the Constitution and Constitutional history is the correct one. Buncombe. It's a wider story than that, and you have to read the Antifederalists and understand that theirs was the more common point of view in the Confederation period, and you have to read what the Federalists did to get ratification through, in order to understand what was done, what was agreed to, and what is revisionism perpetrated by Federalists after the fact.
Another example is the argument you hear from people like Non-Sequitur and his friends who insist that no State can leave the Union on its own initiative, and who rely on Hamiltonian revisionism to deny the States their rightful authority both under the Constitution and beyond it, to preserve and defend their Peoples and their liberties. How do Non-Sequitur et al. know that that is true? Because the South lost the Civil War, and in the war's wake, the Supreme Court, with one of Lincoln's cabinet officers presiding, handed down a decision ultra vires, viz., beyond the Court's scope, in 1869 that said that secession was "illegal". Secession was "illegal" because the South lost and was the captive thrall of the Government -- that's teleology. The North won, therefore the Northern sectional sentiment was washed clean, Northern and Unionist courts and governments were washed clean, and every onus and burden went to the conquered South, whose States were forbidden even to pay their own debts. The ends are deemed to have justified the means retroactively, and seen in the light of outcomes, the actors on the losing side of the controversy are seen in hindsight to have been wading in moral turpitude.
That's teleology.