> It doesn't need to. Your interpretation is not compelling (as well as not relevant, due to the presence of the term). When there is a question, entertained

> It doesn't need to. Your interpretation is not compelling (as well as not relevant, due to the presence of the term). When there is a question, entertained by a court and an emduring legal precedent, ipso facto there was a legal question. An assumption about what needs to be enumerated to exist, is the doctrine of strict constructionism.