Period.
Any change in interpretation is inherently offensive to the clear intent of the framers, vesting the power to do so in a few, or even a single individual, within a single branch of governemnt.
How could you seriously argue that the Constititution, which established enumerated powers, separation of powers and the ultimate authority of the people, should be effectively modifiable by five judges? ...when a wholly different process for modification is explicitly prescribed within the document itself?
If it was intended to be reinterpreted according to the language, times and whims of a few judges, the framers could easily have described that process.
“The only legitimate mechanism for change in the Constitution is through the amendment process.”
Right on. And let’s make a clear amendment, now, that if Daddy is a Brit then you don’t qualify to be Prez!!!