Exactly.
"...as possible", you say. Don't you think the founders realized this? Don't you think the founders were aware of human limitations? They were children of the 18th century. Deists for the most part. Familiar in a way that we are not (pre 9/11) with the consequences of religious absolutism. They were trying to build a stable political system - not one immune from change. They would've been the last to claim "absolute" wisdom.
They realized - as any literate person does - that all law is open to interpretation. That differing views can often never be reconciled. That's why we have a Supreme Court. To make a final decision in real time so that action can be taken in real time. In Marbury vs. Madison the Court decided it was the final arbiter of the meaning of the Contitution - above Congress (but not above the people who could amend) - and that interpretation was approved by the founders and has stood the test of time.
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.