But if by "interpret" you mean to say "amend without using the Constitutional amendment process" (which is how your reply seems to read), sure- but that's not what I said.
By "interpret" I mean the power to declare authoritatively what the provisions of the Constitution say. That by definition is the judicial function. And I don't know what "fuss" you were referring to. I'd be impressed if you can find a single quote from a Founder - prior to the ratification of the Constitution - who said that Congress had the power of interpreting said document. It was universally understood during those debates (by both proponents and opponents of the proposed Constitution) to be the province of the courts.