But then again, it's about interpretation.
Not really. There are instances where leeway exists, but words mean things. For instance, there is no valid argument for gun control, and no real arguments against ".....shall not be infringed", as well, the ninth and tenth amendments explicitly state that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and lay down the very specific process for states to relegate more powers to the federal.
At this point, politicians are using policy, and not proper procedure to get around very specific wording to keep the federal in check, the only interpretation is what should we call this willfull ignorance of the founding document, I like treason myself, but it doesn't fit the constitutional definition. Fraud maybe?
There are some points that the constitution may have interpretations, like how far a right extends, or how much of a certain power the fed should have, but the actual amendments themselves are rock solid.