You should also read Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States : 1791 . Hamilton was a principle architect of the Constitution.
Then you could do a little research on the difference between delegated powers and expressly delegated powers. Try McCulloch v. Maryland, written by Constitutional Convention delegate and Federalist, John Marshall. His opinion confirmed what Brutus had argued.
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only, that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people;" thus, leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. "
As for Madison, he clearly understood all of this. He began as Hamilton's ally, then became his adversary. He flipped and flopped time and again. President Washington, meanwhile, sided with Hamilton on implied powers, as did Chief Justice Marshall. Madison, and his buddy Jefferson, lost that argument handily, and the rest is history. Madison's claim of 'few and defined' national powers was a farce from the start.
Really?! Then I assume you find Jefferson’s thoughts expressed in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association to have no constitutional effect, and that both the 1879 Reynolds v. United States Supreme Court decision and the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, as well as any following decisions, to be in error, at least insofar as these decisions hinge on the said Jefferson letter (there being perhaps other reasons why the decisions might be in error).
Jefferson had a great deal to do with “it.” He was in a lifelong pursuit of correspondence and other exchanges with any number of parties interested in issues of constitutionality (Adams, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, Mason, various judges, and just ordinary interested citizens). Throughout his life, Jefferson’s constitutional opinions were solicited and carefully attended to.
”As for implied powers, I suggest you look at Brutus's great essay on the subject:”
I’m familiar with Brutus. Thank you. But, I asked for your understanding and your opinion.
“[Madison] began as Hamilton's ally, then became his adversary.”
In the beginning Hamilton demonstrated an understanding of the enumerated powers of the Constitution in his arguments against the need for a Bill of Rights. But his understanding seems to have been a mere rhetorical device which Hamilton sought to use in an effort to discourage the adoption of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. When his effort failed, Hamilton then sought instead to render the Constitution “a blank page through construction” (to borrow Jefferson’s words).
Meanwhile in but a few paragraphs Madison explains both the meaning of construction, or implication, and of necessary and proper in Federalist 44.
“Madison's claim of 'few and defined' national powers was a farce from the start.
What’s farcical is the peculiar notion that a document of republican fundamental law can be laid open to whimsical interpretation and not, in the space of little more than two centuries, produce a government that has gone from one with few and defined powers governing a citizenry with virtually unlimited liberty to a state of virtually unlimited powers ruling subjects having few and heavily constricted rights.