Objective boundaries do exist in nature.  They are unclear only because we are unable to make perfect observations.  When we study man-made organizations, two things make it difficult to define the lines of authority:  the subject and the imperfections of the humans who study it.

Political science hasn't been able to define the exact boundaries between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government.  Or even the powers of the different legislative houses.  These obscure subjects puzzle the greatest political science experts.

Three Sources of Ambiguity

Brilliant legislators and jurists have tried to define the objectives and limits of different laws and courts of justice.  This subject has been extensively studied in Great Britain.  But the line between the different types of laws--common law, statute law, maritime law, ecclesiastical law, corporate law, and local laws and customs--still isn't clearly defined.  The jurisdiction of Great Britain's different courts is frequently discussed, but it still isn't perfectly clear.

New laws are written with the greatest technical skill and passed after long deliberations.  Yet they are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal until their meaning is ascertained by a series of discussions and adjudications.

Obscurity comes from (1) the complex­ity of the subjects, (2) human imperfections, and (3) the medium [i.e. words, sentences] used to convey men's ideas.

Humans use words to express ideas.  Clear expression requires well-formed ideas and the appropriate words.  But no language has words and phrases for every complex idea.  And many words have several meanings.  Therefore, the definition of even a precise subject can be inaccurate because words are inaccurate.  This unavoidable inaccuracy grows worse as the subject becomes more complex or novel.

When God himself talks to mankind in our language, his meaning--brilliant as it must be--is made dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.

There are three sources of vague and incorrect definitions: (1) indistinctness of the subject, (2) the brain's imperfections, and (3) the language's inadequacies.  When the constitutional convention worked to define the boundary between federal and State jurisdictions, it must have experienced all three problems.

***********************************************