Exactly: the Federalist papers, the letters, etc., which explain the original intent of the constitutional clauses. We refer to the Fathers of the Church in the same way: they explain the intended meaning of the scripture.
No, the Fathers were commentators, NOT drafters. It is NOT the same and the distinction is clear. The place of the drafters would be taken by other scripture, the intent of the drafter HAS to be the intent of God. We look to God for that intent, and apparently you look to the Fathers for that intent. The liberal looks to outside sources, and the Fathers ARE outside sources, unless you want to put them on a par with the Holy Spirit.
Nothing in the later pronouncements, papal and consiliar, may contradict the earlier doctrine. One cannot get more conservative than that.
All this means is that no one commentator can contradict an earlier commentator. That is neither conservative nor liberal by itself. What is liberal is that the claimer of interpretation (the Church) is using these outside sources as authority in the same way Justice Breyer likes to use foreign law in his opinions.
Apparently the distinction is not clear, since the "tradition" that they wrote of is considered equal of Scripture. Although, their writings were their opinions and are not God Breathed.
The Apostles and other Evangelists are among the Fathers of the Catholic Church as well. The near-contemporaneous comment on the original intent of the Scripture is as invaluable as the near-contemporaenous comment on the US Constitution. I agree that there is the difference in that the Constitution is not divinely inspired, and the Scripture is, but withing the framework of the comparision made by Gamecock, the Catholic regard for the Scripture mirrors the conservative regard for the Constitution.