That is apparent both from reading the Constitution itself and from reading the minutes of the convention and the Federal Papers. However it seems like most so-called strict constructionists are also pro-military. The strong, implicit ban on standing armies is a fact gets left out when the discussion turns to violations of the Constitution.
[i]The existance and constant maintenance of our standing Armies today is not what the FF wanted or authorized.[/i]
One of the main arguments made for this new constitutional nation was that it would allow for the nation to live without a large stading army. This was favorable for the purpose of avoiding tyrrany. However, it was also clear that a small army would be needed to protect the northern and southern borders and maybe even the western (since the states did not control the entire continent. I agree with you that the way things work now is on some level contrary to their vision (not entirely, since our army may not operate domestically- I believe- while the national guard -a modern sort of militia in my limited understanding- may... at least that is my understanding of something I know very little about). However, I disagree with you when you say that they did not authorize it. Congress has the authority to "raise and support Armies". As long as "Appropriations of Money to that use" are not for longer than two years, Congress may continually fund the military (by simply reappropriating funds).