[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't see any contradiction there. One must know what one is bound by and there is no divine guidance given which explains that as regards any law including the Constitution.

Courts have always been the source of guidance as to what a law means so that is not new. Nor is the accusation that they make up law rather than interprete it. Judge Roy Bean comes to mind.

[Who is John Galt?]

The contradiction, in a general sense, was defined by Thomas Jefferson several years before the fact, when he stated:

"...[T]he government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers..."

Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

Insofar as the high court claims to be "the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself," it's powers know absolutely no limit. Mr. Justice Marshall claimed to be "bound" by the Constitution, but he also claimed the right "to say what the law [including the Constitution] is." In short, he claimed a right to judge "the extent of the powers delegated," making the court's "discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers"...

;>)