Why didn't they attach a glossary to clearly define the terms used in the US constitution. The founders were not that smart
>>18448453They were smart enough to understand that language and semantics can change over time which is why the Judicial Branch exists
>why didn't they just create a founding document that preempts all political deadlock for the next 250 years
>>18448453Soapboxers would just argue about what exactly they meant by the definitions in the glossary.
>>18448453They left it ambiguous on purpose to piss everyone off 100 years later so they wouldn't have to figure it outJudicial review wasn't even in there by the way
>>18448538>Judicial review wasn't even in there by the wayThe Pennsylvania Council of Censors already acted as a basis for judicial review of the Federal Constitution.
>>18448538>Judicial review wasn't even in there by the wayjudicial review is discussed in the federalist papers, and is clearly intended by the constitution.>the judges of the supreme court and inferior courts established by congress are given the mandate to decide "cases and controversies">laws are passed with a majority of both houses of congress and the signature of the president>the constitution however can only be amended by a 2/3 vote of congress, and 3/4 of all states agreeing to itSince the framers placed a higher requirement for changing the constitution than an ordinary act of congress, this is clear evidence they did not want congress to be able to pass laws that are contrary to the constitution, instead the constitution has to be changed first. There would be no point of the higher burden to pass amendments if the constitution was merely an aspirational document, rather than binding law on a level superior to all others. And since that is so, if congress (or the executive) takes an action, and someone else believes that action is contrary to the constitution then this is necessarily a case or controversy, which is to be decided by the courts.
