OK. You (we) are reading it. You or I can interpret it, but not in a legally binding way. Only the courts can interpret what the words mean. And, that is what I will abide by. The quote you give refers to state rights. I am talking about federal taxation, and that was clearly spelled out.
I'm not sure if we are connecting. You seem to be saying that the Supreme Court does not have the power to interpret constitutional law.
I'm not saying we are or should change the constitution, I am saying that we definitely are following the constitution. It is just the interpretation that is evolving to meet the ever changing society America is now, compared to the rural society it was back at the constitution's inception.
I can point to a dozen examples of how principals of the constitution when it was written, can apply to current day modern countries, and they work. Gun rights in Switzerland. Free-market Capitalist health care in India. Property rights in China. Low taxes in Russia. In every instance and more, the ideals found in the Constitution, written over 200 years ago, work perfectly today.
The theory that the constitution must evolve with society, if patently false. In fact, the very point of a constitution is to not evolve. It's to anchor the government in solid grounds and limitation. To remove those anchors, is exactly why we're in the position we're in. An overbearing, rights trampling, over spending, corrupt government of career politicians, is exactly what the constitution was designed to prevent.
I think we must have a different interpretation of the word "interpret".
The Supreme court has interpreted countless cases regarding the Constitution. Everyone is familiar with Roe vs. Wade, a ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The Miranda ruling interprets the meaning of the 5th Amendment. There are countless decisions regarding the interpretation of the 1st amendment.
If you wish to substitute the word "meaning" for the word "interpret" I would abide by that, but the word, "interpret" is commonly used in the context of constitutional law.
Yes, to 'interpret' the constitution is to allow the premeditated murder of children unable to yet commit a crime, is exactly the kind of "interpretation" that we should not have.
Perhaps you can explain to me how a law stating that the vote must be certified in 7 days, meant 'as much time as you need to recount'? Was this an 'interpretation' or a change in meaning?
It's funny, but Obama himself seems to disagree with you. He stated clearly he wished that the constitution had been "reinterpreted" to mean something different than what it currently says. How then is 'interpreted' to not mean changing the meaning?