[csb6]

The "historical tradition" justification for rulings the Supreme Court seems to favor in recent years when determining if something is constitutional is fascinating. Presumably this court would have ruled that the original Bank of the United States was unconstitutional since it had no "tradition" of existence at that point in time. I guess new traditions were made unconstitutional around 1850 and the existing ones were grandfathered in.

[rayiner]

What’s unusual about it? A bunch of guys wrote a document with rules. What they did and did not do after establishing those rules is pretty relevant to understanding what the rules mean, right?

Say Linus Torvolds wrote legally binding rules for the design of the Linux kernel. How he designed the Linux kernel after writing those rules would be quite relevant to what the rules mean, right?

[csb6]

Any person in power might violate the rules and just because they happened to be one of the people who helped write them doesn't mean they wouldn't violate them. In fact, they would be more likely to get away with bending the rules due to being one of the people who made the rules.