Are you really as ignorant of our system of government as you appear?
First, the Supreme Court cannot declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Second, our tri-partite form of government does not require the courts to "interpret" laws - it requires them to apply them. It is the tendency of the courts to try to "interpret" the laws to mean what ever they think the law should mean that led to Roe v. Wade and the imposition of gay marriage in Mass.
Surely you know that the Constitution allows Congress to deny the courts jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of a law, don't you?
>>>Second, our tri-partite form of government does not require the courts to “interpret” laws - it requires them to apply them<<<
In order to apply a law, you have to interpret the principle of law in relation to the scenario at hand. They’re indivisibly linked.