You are aware that the Constitution of 1787 did not, right?
Here’s another. “What will render this power in Congress effectual and sure in its operation is, that the government will have complete judicial and executive authority to carry all their laws into effect”
A government that cannot enforce the law is not a government, a fact demonstrated perfectly by the Articles of Anarchy.
Where is the usual outrage over the “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare” clause?
" in vain therefore will be all interference of the legislatures, courts, or magistrates of any of the states on the subject; for they will be subordinate to the general government, and engaged by oath to support it, and will be constitutionally bound to submit to their decisions."
This is why I say the 10th amendment is a dead letter, and the states whooping it up with resolutions are wasting their time.
It was properly understood at the time where the national powers would lead:
They [the judicial] will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted. One adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect individuals only, so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be informed of them. In the meantime all the art and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts to their opinion.
This, from a different Brutus essay, is a pretty fair description of national accrual of power through the judicial branch. There are other excesses, but the critique of the judicial branch is damning and accurate. It's a fatal flaw.