Interpretation is absolutely vital to insuring that the document as written is not a toothless list of truisms. Example, the Fourth Amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Notice that this Amendment says NOTHING about what is supposed to happen should a search be conducted without meeting the standard of the amendment. To me, common sense says that if you violate the above the search was not only illegal of it violated the constitution and anything you find in the course of that unconstitutional search should be excluded. However, after the Supreme Court actually pointed that out to people, individuals of the conservative ilk said that the exclusionary rule was judge made and that illegally and unconstitutionally gained evidence should be admissible against the person being prosecuted. If not for those "9 men" interpreting the constitution cops could kick your door in and obtain evidence without a warrant and it would be admissible against you. This is the flaw in the conservative belief that the mere words of the constitution are enough. I believe the founders were so smart that it never even occurred to them that the fruits of a search conducted in violation of the amendment would EVER be allowed in a court. Most of us live in a world where violation of rules have consequences. Cheaters never prosper and all that, but until Mapp v. Ohio it never seemed to occur to ANYONE that violating the Fourth Amendment should have negative consequences to the prosecution.
