OK, that puts the "non" in non-sequitor. Where the hell did that come from? Never mind, I don't want to know.
They were trying to build a stable political system
BZZZT. They could have done that with Emperor George Washington. Try again.
They realized - as any literate person does - that all law is open to interpretation.
Actually, they often appealed to "reason". But in the age of moral relativism, that has now become malleable.
In Marbury vs. Madison the Court decided it was the final arbiter of the meaning of the Contitution
No . . . actually what happened is that the Court decided that it could use the Constitution to determine the outcome of lawsuits and set precidents. It has the same effect as it means that unconstitutional laws will not be enforced.
Washington refused kingship.
They wanted a democratic - not an aristocratic or absolutist - form of government. They were trying to avoid the historical pitfalls of such forms.
Actually, they often appealed to "reason".
Rhetoric is an ancient skill, always highly valued.
It has the same effect as it means that unconstitutional laws will not be enforced.
And who decides what laws are unconstitutional?