Back on your "deep study" fixed idea, I see.
I've got to hand it to you, you managed to make a decent analogy. I like the comparison to great literature. I don't claim to be an expert on literature, but that doesn't stop me from understanding, say, Macbeth or some other play by Shakespeare. If you told me that Coriolanus was able to control his temper and wanted to give more political power to averege Romans, I'd know you were wrong. You would still be wrong if you had credentials, and I would still know it, not because I'm an expert, but because I read the play. Sure, some thing are deep and obscure and subtle, but some things are obvious.
This is why Hamilton had to write the Federalist in order to explain and educate the population as to its meaning.
To the contrary, Hamilton and Madison(don't you hate that?) wrote it to persuade people to support it. Of course, that involved going over it and the arguments for it in detail, but it wasn't as if everyone was so stupid they couldn't read it for themselves.
Even Jefferson appeared not to understand it and he was a lawyer.
I'll note that you also think Jefferson was a traitor.
Most of those claiming the great simplicity of this phenomenal document cannot carry a legal analysis past a couple of sentences
Sometimes you don't need to. I've found that asking where the Constitution authorizes something is usually enough. Half the time they bring up the "general welfare clause".
There should be a requirement that the foundation of all appellate court decisions be the law (in all its forms, including the Constitution). Other court decisions may be cited as well, to help clarify places the law may be ambiguous, but the law must be the backbone of every appellate court decision.
No I don't hate acknowledging Madison as one of the authors. Leaving him out merely allows me to point to the greatness of Hamilton the Ramrod of the Constitution since he wrote 2/3s of them and was the initiator of the project. Madison stated there was no way he could keep up with Hamilton's prodigous output which like Mozart turned out masterpieces in lightning speed.
Since the majority of our population was illiterate chances are they couldn't read it for themselves they were not stupid merely uneducated. If I am not mistaken most states voted on ratification with electorates less restricted than normal. High property qualifications in the South assured that the small electorates there were literate since the wealthy could educate their children. New England and New York probably had a majority which was literate and a more expanded electorate due to property being widely held.
No I don't claim that Jefferson was a traitor because there was no state of war between the U.S. and France at the time of his disloyalty to Washington and Adams when they were president. Just as Obubba Been Lyin' can't be charged with treason absent a war. Unfortunately.
Read Hamilton's discussion of the constitutionality of the National Bank as to implied powers which reasoning Madison accepted until the mid 1790s i.e. before partisian politics turned him into a party hack.
Is your belief that the general welfare clause is meaningless?