The problem I have, and you have not answered, is if you think the Constitution should be the sole document (no other) to IMPLEMENT law?
Case in point. Title 10 of US Code for the Armed Forces. The Constitution does not spell out how defending the nation should be performed, but its authority is derived from the Constitution itelf.
If you posit that the Constitution and nothing else can run the government, then you are a lonely man with that view. No one believes that but you. No one. It is the first I've heard of it, and I am a staunch constitutionalist. I can tell you no one would be able to do their jobs without implementing instructions (not talking about authority).
I would enjoy Mark Levin or Chris Plant opining on this because as it stands, it is a freak show proposition. So congrats.
Your words, not mine.
Title 10 of the U.S. Code for the Armed Forces falls under the enumerated powers delegated to Congress in Art. I, Sec. 8. so it is irrelevant here.
The “administrative state” including NSA, makes regulations (effective as laws) and acts that are unlimited, centralized, and delegated to unelected bureaucrats, and is thus, flatly unconstitutional.