What I said was that the document was written in such a way that did not require interpretation to understand. It is a document that states the principles from which our laws have emerged.
It is these laws that must be interpreted as to whether or not they are constitutional. The legislative branch creates the law, if there is a question as to it's constitutionality, the judicial branch determines the constitutionality (yes or no) of that law. The Supreme Court being the "last stop on the line," if you will, in the process of this determination. It is not the Constitution being questioned, that is the constant in the equation. It is the laws that are gauged against the Constitution to determine their constitutionality.
That is not to say that the Constitution is today as it was when ratified. Of course that's not the case. It's been modified over time through constitutional conventions. Some changes for the better, and some....? That is certainly open to interpretation!
So, I know it's growing late and we should quit on some agreement, but for morning after coffee debate, consider this.
Since the Constitution is interpreted through legislation, prior arguments that "because something (our topic here)isnt in the Constitution, it isnt Constitutional can be thrown out...which leads me to state again...What proof does anybody have that the Shadow Govt (Wash Post stupid term), a contingency for a Govt emergency really.......what evidence that it is not Constitutional. Good Night. Cya in the AM