That's easy. Any court system that could conclude the 14th Amendment bans prayer in School, gives women a right to kill their offspring, and creates anchor babies, obviously can't be too competent at interpreting the constitution properly. Throw in Kelo v New London, the exclusionary rule, and the ridiculous expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause, and you've pretty much made the case that the ONLY people who shouldn't be allowed to interpret the constitution are the ones who are doing it now.
As William F Buckley said:
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
Regarding the issue of "natural born citizen", anyone can research it and discover it's true meaning and purpose. Those trained in the lawyerly profession are schooled into a "rut" of thought from which most of them cannot break. The same sort of problem exists in the scientific community and is referred to as "intellectual phase lock."
Only a person who is willing to take a fresh look at the issue without preconceived notions is able to make an objective analysis. The Robed Priests of academia and the courts are too steeped in their own dogma and rituals.
So to answer your question, any relatively intelligent person is likely more skilled at interpreting the Constitution properly than are those people who have been taught to live in a rut.
As Ronald Reagan said:
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, its just that they know so much that isn't so "
Analogy: Catholicism => Reformation => Protestantism.
And actually, the Age of Reason is another example where western civilization emerged from the “intellectual phase lock” of feudalism. The United States was founded in large part as a consequence of that. It would appear to be time for a repeat.