>>>>Article 3 Section 2 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec2.html
>>>>The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...
>>>>
>>>>The Constitution is not to be interpreted, it is to be used to interpret cases, legislation, treaties etc. We need the judicial branch to ensure that the Legislative and Executive branches do not violate the Constitution. If the Constitution is open to interpretation, then there is no established rigorous "check" on the other branches, merely the whims of the present justices. The Constitution is meant to stand as THE law establishing and thereby restraining the power of the 3 branches.
>>>
>>>The problem is that the Constitution sometimes needs interpretation. Let's take one clause that's been in the news over the last few years:
>>>
>>>From Article 2, Section 1:
>>>
>>>No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
>>>
>>>Questions I can see quickly from that sentence:
>>>
>>>1) What is the meaning of "natural born"? Specifically, does it mean "born a citizen" or "born within the borders of the US"? (If I wanted to be argumentative, I could even point out that one interpretation would even eliminate those born by C-Section or those for whom labor was induced. But I think we can all agree that the founders weren't really interested in the manner of birth.)
>>>
>>>2) Does "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States" mean that you have to have been living within the US borders for all of the last 14 years? Does that mean service people who've been stationed outside the US are eliminated? What about people who lived overseas for work?
>>>
>>>That's too meaty questions from one sentence. How can you say the document doesn't need to be interpreted?
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>I have a few minutes so I'll bite.
>>
>>The phrase "natural born citizen" as understood in the verbage of the time, derived from the English common law that the framers used as a basis. It refers to children born in a country to parents who are its citizens. This phrasing was used to define citizens seperately from foreigners as a primary concern at the time was having a person with foreign loyalty placed in charge of the new Republic and its military. There was no debate regarding the phrasing which was adopted by the drafting Committee of Eleven suggesting that it's meaning was understood well enough to not require explicit definition nor controversial enough to rise to require debate.
>
>I'm not so sure. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution) quotes Hamilton as proposing a far less ambiguous wording, but that wasn't adopted. Reading the quote from Madison there, it sure sounds like American citizens born outside the country wouldn't be eligible.

I'm not certain how what I pointed out is different from Madison. In addition the 14th Amendment further expanded the definition of citizen.

>IOW, there has had to be interpretation of that clause. And, in fact, lots of the language is subject to inpretation. Yes, the founders' other writings provide some insight into their thinking, but we also have to acknowledge that the document was a compromise and so, no one founders' thoughts are exactly what we got.
>
>Tamar

As I mentioned in my post to Alan, perhaps I should have said judicial interpretation. In addition, having slept on it I'm convinced that the word "interpretation" may be too broad.
From Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interpretation

1 to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2 to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance

Under definition 1 I agree the Constitution can and should be explained. Definition 2 is where I have the problem because it leads to watering down the framework by allowing anyone's "beliefs" to apply.