Yes, what you say is of great importance and is well understood by leaders of the hundreds of conservative state legislators that are spearheading the effort to churn out the first amendment to be recorded by the National Archives and sent out for ratification. That amendment addresses peacetime balancing of the federal budget.
There are plenty of historical existing amendments that are not subject to abuse because of how they are written. Those amendments are a testament to how it can be done.
There are also provisions within the Constitution that the left would like to twist to their own devices but they are unable because the wording is so clear that no judge could survive a ruling in contradiction to the wording. These provisions are also a testament to the fact that words can be crafted to be abuse-resistant.
These are not just my thoughts, these are discussions that state legislative leaders have on the subject matter. I am only trying to pass on information that will educate others as to what is happening in the process.
Perhaps you could try a different style. Like, saying "Here is what I know. Use at your own discretion." And then, like, leave it. If it's as good as you say, it shouldn't require cudgeling readers' heads.
When the expected questions come in, you could either answer them or explain where to find the answers in the piece that you posted.
Surely you've been here long enough to get that none of us like being spoken down to, or being bossed around. And you've noticed that we respond to berating in a like manner.
I personally have noticed that when someone posts here with the "I'm the smartest person in this room" attitude, some of us take great sport in poking holes in the balloon of faux genius that surrounds the "smartest" people.
I fully expect you to reply by telling me I wasn't in the original conversation (yeah, but I watched it) or that I shouldn't dictate style to you (I'm one of your readers. A good poster is concerned with the effectiveness of their writing. A good writer makes sure his message has been sent and received effectively. (BTW, yours didn't because of the overriding stench of "superior smugness" which surrounded it).
Nutshell.
I have a notion that these passages we have trouble with were probably bitterly contested when it came to nailing down the final text. Undoubtedly lawyers fighting over it too, and so in these cases they came up with garbage. To wit “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”