The problem that you and I have is that we both believe that those boundary lines have been spread too far and wide. Others, however, believe they haven't been spread nearly far nor wide enough.
We claim that there is no need to interpret the Constitution; that what it says is all there in plain clear English. Others, who also have votes, disagree. They believe in an evolving Constitution that is able to be flexible with changes in technology, culture, and society in general.
If we want our particular vision, which we believe to be the correct one, to succeed in the political arena then we need to limit ourselves to successful tactics.
There is a party which has been clearly and consistently stating a position in favor of Constitutionally limited government for some time. They have even put candidates on numerous ballots for a variety of political offices up to and including the Presidency of the US.
Theirs has not been a successful strategy.
Of course we’re not operating within Constitutional boundaries. We’re no longer operating according to Constitutional rule. There are prescribed procedures for making changes to the Constitution. It’s unconstitutional to operate unconstitutionally just because someone says they feel good about it.
Political parties are what one might call extra-Constitutional. The US political system is not a partisan system. If you want partisan politics to represent the views of the people the way you describe, then you need a multi-party representational system - which the US does not have.
The poor quality of our de facto “two-party system” is a far cry from evidence that the majority opposes politicians who believe in Constitutional rule. That’s just a naughty argument.