Framers of our Constitution were very precise

Dear Editor,
I do not understand why even distinguished lawyers are having protracted arguments about the fact that our Constitution does not use the word “absolute” in describing the type of majority required for the successful passage of a vote of no-confidence.
I hold neither a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) nor a Legal Education Certificate (LEC). What I do hold is a rare Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Economics and Law from the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, where I was taught Constitutional Law by the once Honourable Dr Kenny D Anthony and where I developed a passion for research.
When my good friend, Nigel Hughes, came up with what he has described to me as his “new math” theory of the half-man, I immediately began a marathon of sleepless nights of legal research which yielded much fruit. In the course of this research, I came across the simple explanation of why the word “absolute” is not used in the Constitution.
The simple reason is that it is not necessary. The framers of our Constitution were, unusually for lawyers, very precise and verbosity was anathema to them. There was no reason to say “absolute majority” because this is defined in the rest of the Article. The majority of a vote by “all elected members” is, by definition, an absolute majority.

FE Alleyne