Hermeneutics and Constitutional Interpretation

I am a judge. For me, a constitution is an operational document. I decide cases by extracting meaning from its text. The process of extracting meaning from the text of the constitution, as with any document, is the process of interpretation, and so the question presented to me is: How do you interpret a constitution? It is not an answer to say "Words have no meaning; do whatever you think politically expedient." Words do have meaning. A cigarette is not an elephant. I am a judge, not a politician. I do not have a political agenda; I do not represent a constituency. It is not my role, nor do I desire, to impose my subjective will on the polity. I am required to act judiciously, objectively, consistently, coherently. It is no answer to me to advise, "Think and act prudently, pragmatically, reasonably." What does "prudently" mean? When am I acting "pragmatically"? It is also no answer to say "Read the text and apply it." To read and apply requires the intermediate step: to construe. The words of a constitution, like the words of any other document, may have several meanings. What meaning should I choose? Words can be applied on different levels of generality and abstraction. Which level should I choose? It may be said "Choose the level of generality and abstraction that fits the intent of the framers of the constitution." But why should I? Is the purpose of interpretation to further their intent? Isn't the purpose of interpretation to further the purpose of the constitution? In order to know how to read a constitution I must have a better understanding of interpretation. What is "interpretation" and how is it accomplished? I realize soon, that I am faced with similar questions when I read other texts. How does one read a contract, a statute, a will? Do I read a constitution the same way I read a will? Do we not always have to be aware that "it is a constitution we are ex-