Madison was obviously one of these 'living document' types, which seems ironic considering he helped write the dang thing, but we also have to remember this was during the turbulent boot up and debugging phase. It'd have been nice if he had insisted on modifying the document through the proper channels, because we'd likely have gotten an amendment that not only directs the Court to resolve issues with the Constitution, but gives specific directions to the justices for their deliberation (literal, inferred, or pragmatic reading). Alas, claiming undelegated powers from the congress through legal opinion was far easier (hard to blame him)
"By definition, SCOTUS decisions are the law, are they not? How can the law fly in the face of the law?"
Our founding documents are quite clear on the universality of 'natural rights,' intrinsic to the human condition. The law flies in the face of natural law when it is lawless. Further, the primary distinction of Protestantism among the founders and colonies from Catholicism was that it was a decentralized literary faith; it relied upon independent individuals (or parishes, at least) reading the source document of the faith in their native tongue and finding their own interpretation from it. I think the plain writing, short length, and public display & reproduction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ultimately intended for the same purpose.
TCB