I agree with you that you can't understand how the Constitution applies in real life just by reading it. Not even the framers could agree on what it meant, not even at the time it was written. It's full of compromises and gaps that had to be filled in over time, not always very satisfactorily.
A lot of the arguments about "strict construction" vs. "living breathing etc." are just a way of saying "I am right and you are wrong." Scalia is as bad as any of the rest of them in pretending that he's a "strict constructionist" when he really means "my interpretation is the correct one." They all do it. They always have.
For example - the author of the posted article says that "the Constitution relied on the Bible." Well, that's not anywhere in the Constitution, and there are plenty of sources that beg to differ. Argue about it all you want, it's still just an opinion.
Conveniently packaged as if it were factual in the hope that you are easily bamboozled, especially when you read something you want to believe because you like what it says.
Good lordy, is that true. I think most Americans think that our Founders were one big wise committee that came up with this thing in some spirit of compromise and God-given wisdom. Cripes, Aaron Burr shot dead the guy on our $10 bill in 1804.
We did extremely well in coming up with our Constitution, and while I won't argue that it's being followed precisely today, it's reasonably close. We're probably doing much better than expected. If we assembled the same guys in 2005 to draft a constitution, I'm afraid of what it might look like.