It's not clear what you're asking; however, the practice of attempting to apply constitutional interpretations with what a justice or justices believe was the Framers' inflexible intent is called "Originalism." On the US Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia is an outspoken proponent of Originalism.
Critics of this approach are quick to point out there is no real way of knowing what the Framers had in mind, particularly when the document was intentionally left vague and open to interpretation. Originalists tend to be conservative, and to resist the idea of evolving interpretations to fit new societal needs when they arise (the "Living Constitution").
It is important to note that originalist thinking exists only a small number of justices; rarely would the entire Supreme Court apply the same type of interpretation.
judicial restraint
The US Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court interprets laws and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution - the law of the land. The Magisterium interprets Scriptures - the law of God.
The Supreme Court
The Constitution
congress , the president , or supreme court
legislativeAnother View: WRONG! It is the Judicial Branchwhich interprets the Bill of Rights, an integral part of the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the government. It interprets the constitution concerning issues that is hears.
Original intent
Original intent
The judiciary interprets the law because of a case called Marbury v. Madison. In effect the Supreme Court usurped the power to determine what is the law even though judicial review had been considered and rejected by the framers of The Constitution.