I, in principle, agree with you. Let me point out a problem with your position, though.
When the Constitution, or a law, is not unambiguously clear in meaning, somebody has to determine what the true meaning is.
For the most part, that has been the courts.
Do you seriously contend that allowing the courts to interpret the Constitution as they see fit is better than giving such power to Congress?
The voters can completely replace a Congress in 6 years, if they see fit. Replacing the Supreme Court entirely might take 40 or more years.
The courts are the least representative and democratic branch of government. Giving them additional power by allowing them to decide whether a president's election was valid is not a good idea. They're much too powerful already.
Giving anyone the final authority on what words mean in the law is extremely dangerous. The courts rightfully have the power to interpret the law, but not to make or change it. That power is reserved to Congress, the States and the people.
The flaw in our system is that we have no effective mechanism to prevent the courts from stepping over the line from resolving ambiguities to actually making or changing law.
But giving Congress the power to make words mean whatever they want (at least as far as the law is concerned) is not the answer.