Your theory of the complete failure of the Constitution is unique, to say the least. It's hard to imagine being able to look at the last 230+ years of world history and call the United States a complete failure, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
And as far at the Supreme Court being unnecessary, once again, there is arguing that it has overstepped it's bounds (with which I agree) and arguing that it's original purpose was unnecessary, which I have to dismiss for cause. What exactly would you have used in it's stead for it's original purpose?
Finally, your call to not only abandon the Constitution, but also national government, is naive beyond belief. Only a national government provides the coordinated power necessary to survive against other... national governments. It's like arguing against guns by quoting all of their inherent dangers, without acknowledging the fact that criminals use guns. Just as the criminals are the real problem, so are other nation-states, who will take over your little confluences of non-national people unprotected by either size or a fundamental guiding doctrine of negative rights to curb their own little fiefdoms.
The Founders didn't "authorize" themselves - they submitted their work to the States for ratification. And the problem they faced was how to cripple the government's power against the people as much as possible while still enabling it against foreign national threats. In the entire known history of the world, their creation of a doctrine of negative rights has proven to be breathtakingly brilliant and successful, but even they warned that no government can survive the moral corruption and ignorance of it's people - it's simply not within the range of any government to prevent that.
But arguing for the destruction of national government altogether is an equally untenable, and grossly unrealistic, counter-response to the abiding threat of totalitarian invasion (under whatever name).
When I refer to a “national” government, I mean in contrast to a truly federal government. I grant we as a Union require a shared governmental structure. My point is that it needn’t have been a national system with so much power.
I believe its "original purpose" was faulty. Some excerpts on the subject from AntiFederalist No. 81 (the existance of these documents is important, because it obliterates this notion that the abuses we have seen since the adoption of The Constitution were somehow unforseen or unimaginable to the founders.)
Here you go:
Perhaps the judicial power will not be able, by direct and positive decrees, ever to direct the legislature, because it is not easy to conceive how a question can be brought before them in a course of legal discussion, in which they can give a decision, declaring, that the legislature have certain powers which they have not exercised, and which, in consequence of the determination of the judges, they will be bound to exercise. But it is easy to see, that in their adjudication they may establish certain principles, which being received by the legislature will enlarge the sphere of their power beyond all bounds.
snip
From these observations it appears, that the judgment of the judicial, on the constitution, will become the rule to guide the legislature in their construction of their powers. What the principles are, which the courts will adopt, it is impossible for us to say. But taking up the powers as I have explained them in my last number, which they will possess under this clause, it is not difficult to see, that they may, and probably will, be very liberal ones. We have seen, that they will be authorized to give the constitution a construction according to its spirit and reason, and not to confine themselves to its letter.
snip
If it be further considered, that this constitution, if it is ratified, will not be a compact entered into by states, in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people of the United States as one great body politic, no doubt can remain but that the great end of the constitution, if it is to be collected from the preamble, in which its end is declared, is to constitute a government which is to extend to every case for which any government is instituted, whether external or internal. The courts, therefore, will establish this as a principle in expounding the constitution, and will give every part of it such an explanation as will give latitude to every department under it, to take cognizance of every matter, not only that affects the general and national concerns of the union, but also of such as relate to the administration of private justice, and to regulating the internal and local affairs of the different parts.
snip
As it sets out in the preamble with this declared intention, so it proceeds in the different parts with the same idea. Any person, who will peruse the 5th section with attention, in which most of the powers are enumerated, will perceive that they either expressly or by implication extend to almost every thing about which any legislative power can be employed. If this equitable mode of construction is applied to this part of the constitution, nothing can stand before it. This will certainly give the first clause in that article a construction which I confess I think the most natural and grammatical one, to authorise the Congress to do any thing which in their judgment will tend to provide for the general welfare, and this amounts to the same thing as general and unlimited powers of legislation in all cases.
snip
It is obvious that these courts will have authority to decide upon the validity of the laws of any of the states, in all cases where they come in question before them. Where the constitution gives the general government exclusive jurisdiction, they will adjudge all laws made by the states, in such cases, void ab inilio. Where the constitution gives them concurrent jurisdiction, the laws of the United States must prevail, because they are the supreme law. In such cases, therefore, the laws of the state legislatures must be repealed, restricted, or so construed, as to give full effect to the laws of the union on the same subject. From these remarks it is easy to see, that in proportion as the general government acquires power and jurisdiction, by the liberal construction which the judges may give the constitution, those of the states will lose their rights, until they become so trifling and unimportant, as not to be worth having.
snip
That's enough to chew on for now. You see, the SCOTUS is tied to the Constitution that created it, and together, it was so amazingly clear to see at the time for those with eyes to see, they form centralized TYRANNY.
I'm so sick of all this talk of the framers' intent. Intentions and a dollar get you a cup of coffee. Look at what they created. And don't tell me "if only it had been followed." Look at the criticisms from the time it was adopted. It was all out there.