As the U.S. Supreme Court concludes its latest term, the focus isn't just on the immediate impacts of its rulings, but also on a broader, more philosophical discourse: how should the Constitution be interpreted? This reflection is crucial not only for legal scholars but for every citizen under its governance.

Contrary to a religious scripture, the Constitution, crafted by humans, guides the nation’s laws and principles. Central to its effective application is the ancient ethical code, the Golden Rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated. In the realm of constitutional law, this translates into a call for fairness and reciprocity. The Constitution’s promise is to safeguard others’ rights as fiercely as it protects our own, demanding government impartiality in its treatment of all individuals.

This principle of constitutional reciprocity, while simple, proves challenging in practice. It necessitates setting aside personal biases and desires to uphold a higher standard of justice and equality. The Golden Rule in constitutional interpretation means consistent application of laws, regardless of personal affiliations or the nature of the issue at hand.

For instance, freedom of speech must be upheld equally across the board, irrespective of the speaker's identity or message. This non-discriminatory application is evident in scenarios ranging from anti-abortion protests to anti-Israel demonstrations. The same holds for the interpretation of what constitutes incitement versus protected speech; the criteria must remain constant, unaffected by the speaker’s political leanings.

The principle extends beyond individual rights to structural constitutional themes like federalism and separation of powers. Historical shifts in political power illustrate how interpretations of states’ rights and federal authority can change depending on the prevailing political winds. Yet, the Golden Rule mandates consistency: principles like anti-commandeering, which limits federal command over state and local authorities, must apply uniformly regardless of the current administration's agenda.

This rule also impacts judicial review and the broader separation of powers. Government officials, whether conservative or liberal, must adhere to Supreme Court rulings with equal rigor, respecting the Rule of Law across all government levels and political perspectives.

Yet, the Golden Rule does not simplify constitutional interpretation to a mere formula; it acknowledges the complexity and potential for good-faith disagreements among jurists and scholars. For example, interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause vary, some focusing on protecting minority classes from discrimination, while others challenge any racial classification, regardless of intent.

Ultimately, the Golden Rule of constitutional interpretation underpins a broader vision: a fair, consistent application of the Constitution that respects all viewpoints and protects all citizens. As the nation digests the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, this guiding principle serves as a crucial benchmark, ensuring that justice, in its truest form, is indeed blind. This approach not only deepens our understanding of law but fortifies the very foundations of democratic governance.