The Constitution says, in plain english, what it says my friend your opinions, and Hamilton's, not withstanding.
When your plain English is in direct contradiciton to the founders, both in meaning and intent, you're claim is wrong.
Hamilton in Federalist #16:
"...in the face of a constitution in any degree competent to its own defense, and of a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority. The success of it would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice and of the body of the people. If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional, and void."
So, Mr. Hamilton could never have said this if your plain English claim were true. That's, because the legislature would simply put the unconstitutional legislaiton off limits to the court. Thus avoiding any need for embarking in a conspiracy to undermine the Constitution.