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"..
Your out of context mis-takes on what Marshall wrote are a wonder to behold.
You seem to have an almost personal animosity to the man. -- I'll grant he was a deeply flawed individual in later years, but in 1803 he was at the top of his constitutional form.
What's your real beef here?
As I have stated repeatedly, there is a fundamental logical flaw in Mr. Justice Marshall's argument. Since you appear to lack the ability to comprehend my words, I will refer you to those of Thomas Jefferson (I'll make it simple for you: see Post #273).
You do seem to be awfully 'slow on the uptake'...
;>)