We like to imagine that the people who wrote the constitution were very uniformly in agreement about all of it, but there was a lot of disagreement that made it more of a “least disagreeable” implementation than a “best” implementation.

Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. … Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

Thomas Jefferson, on why he thinks the concept of judicial review is shitty and not supported by the constitution.

So if you went back in time, a good number of the people who wrote the constitution would say “no duh” to finding out things went pear shaped, or at least the perception of such things increased.