"Everyone who can read with comprehension should interpret the Constitution. "Then if that is true, why do we need a court, The Supreme Court, which does nothing but interpret the Constitution?
It seems, as you say, that if anyone who can read with comprehension, should be able to understand it, then we would never have a dispute on what it means.
There will always be disputes over what it means, because it often serves someone's agenda that it mean something different. The Court should confirm the obvious instead of splitting hairs similar to Clinton's depending what "is" is, as is too often the case when they legislate from the Bench.