Really? Monumentally?
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
That seems very clear.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Crystal clear.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Perfectly clear.
Well, those are easy.
Google on the "Necessary and Proper Clause" for vagueness. The Commerce Clause too. Also the General Welfare Clause. What these mean has a been a long Ouija Board exercise, especially when they get extended to health care, the internet, nuke weapons, and all manners of things the framers did not anticipate.
So here's a question...should the Constitution be interpreted with regards to what the framers intended? Or in regards to
what the ratifiers understood it to mean? Those aren't necessarily the same thing. Think about it. Each state had to ratify it (I think 11 did?)
The Constitution says the Veep will be the President of the Senate, which implies the Veep will preside over Senate meetings, which is not at all what happens. How'd they sneak through that gaping hole?
I'm not dinging the Constitution, it's the best on the planet ever. But there are lots of questions about things now that the legislative branches have not spoken on, but that need to be decided by
someone. Those decisions trace up to SCOTUS, who by requirement must trace their rulings back to the Constitution, no matter how tenuous the connection. That's just the way it is.