Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council dealt with the Court’s power of statutory interpretation. This proposal would give Congress an explicit role in interpreting the Constitution, while the Court retains its role as supreme interpreter. The application of the Chevron doctrine to constitutional interpretation is a logical outgrowth of Supreme Court decisions and could harmonize some tensions in the Court’s current doctrines. The first benefit of this approach is the flexibility it restores to the constitutional system. Additionally, it is compatible with current practice. It is a step anticipated by Chevron and requires no revolutionary alterations in the working Court or its precedents. Not only is the proposal compatible with current practice, but it would also allow the Court to clarify some problematic doctrines. Adopting this method would not only be consistent with precedent, but would also reinvigorate political spheres -– making the Constitution truly a document of the people, not just of judges. This should have positive ramifications for the Supreme Court, for Congress, for jurisprudence and political livelihood. Also, the ability of the model to assimilate the diversity of viewpoints that exist within society should enhance its attractiveness to the sides in various conflicts that find their way into the court system. All these considerations argue for the need to seriously expand the sources and understanding of constitutional interpretation, and push for a flexible framework such as the one proposed here. 308 notes.