One might assess that understanding the Constitution has various sources such

as:
- the text itself;
- the intentions of those who drafted the Constitution,
- other prior judicial precedents;
- the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations.
The reasons for such a way of thinking are:
1. Amendment 9, Amendment 10 and Amendment 14
If the only source of meaning in the Constitution comes from the text itself, we
should have a complete description of the rights of the people. But, given that
the Amendments state that the people has other rights, not defined in the
Constitution, we have to consider other sources for understanding the text.
Moreover, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, taken together, mean that the
federal government has only the authority granted to it, while the people are
presumed to have any right or power not specifically forbidden to them. The Bill
of Rights as a whole is dedicated to describing certain key rights of the people
that the government is categorically forbidden to remove, abridge, or infringe.
These arguments are relevant also because the Amendments are part of the
Constitution (cf. Section 4, Article. V of the Constitution). Subsequently, the
Constitution itself tells us, indirectly, that we might other sources for
interpretation besides the written text itself.
2. The transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The text states in its Preamble that: The Conventions of a number of the States,
having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order
to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added.
Some of those declaratory and restrictive clauses are written protections for
certain preexisting rights of the people (such as the right to bear arms) and
guarantees of ancient procedural protections, such as jury trial.
3. Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
For example, United Public Workers v. Mitchell. One might notice the right to
further his own political views is confirmed by the Supreme Court, taking into
consideration not only the text of the Constitution but, also, other reasons: Thus
we have a measure of interference by the Hatch Act and the Rules with what
otherwise would be the freedom of the civil servant under the First, Ninth and
Tenth Amendments. And, if we look upon due process as a guarantee of freedom
in those fields, there is a corresponding impairment of that right under the Fifth
Amendment. Appellants' objections under the Amendments are basically the
same.
4. Scholars opinions

St. George Tucker, in his 1803 commentaries on the Constitution, derived the
principle that all of the Constitutions rights protecting provisions should be read
very broadly, while the power granting provisions should be read very narrowly.
His opinion implies that there are some other sources for interpreting the
constitution, beside the written text itself.
5. Justification for the decisions taken by the judges
When a court sets aside a statute as unconstitutional, it in essence deems the
statute invalid in the name of the Constitution. Courts have claimed the power to
do this because, in the famous words of John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the
decision that established the institution of judicial review, "it is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
6. Relationship between the text of the Constitution and the lived experiences of
Americans
William Brennan argued that "the Constitution is not a static document whose
meaning on every detail is fixed for all time by the life experience of the
Framers." He contended that the Constitution must be understood instead as "a
document meant to last for the ages," the bearer of an "inherent adaptability"
that could not be cabined by any "static and lifeless" meaning. And we see the
truth of William Brennans words in the lived experiences of Americans.